In Cool Hand Luke, Paul Newman’s character famously bluffs in a hand of poker and later explains, “Yeah, well sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.” It is a great scene and a great movie. The problem is that sometimes nothing can be . . . well . . . nothing. Democrats are learning that lesson this week after some Texas legislators indicated that they will be headed home and opponents are calling the bluffs of figures from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to Texas’s Beto O’Rourke.
There is a key poker tip left unstated in the movie: You cannot bluff when the other players already know your cards.
After a couple of weeks of posturing in exile in blue states, Texas Democrats returned home as expected, allowing the state to move forward with its redistricting plan. There was never any doubt about what would happen because it has happened before with Democrats —lacking the votes to defeat legislation, they flee the state to prevent all legislative business.
The media predictably lionized the Democrats as stateless freedom fighters while repeating unfounded claims that the state was about to wipe out minority representation, a move that not only contradicted the GOP plan but would contravene federal law.
It was another “I am Spartacus” moment for Democrats seeking recognition as the leaders of the resistance movement. It did not work out particularly well due to the chosen safe harbor for the Democratic political refugees: Illinois.
Illinois is arguably the most gerrymandered state in the union, where Republicans were reduced to just three of the state’s 17 congressional seats, even though they won nearly half the votes in the last election. The districts resemble an electoral Rorschach test, with Democrats snaking dozens of miles to capture pockets of Democratic voters to deny Republicans seats. Standing next to Gov. JB Pritzker (D) (who signed the gerrymandering legislation) as he bellowed about “stealing” congressional seats became an instant punchline.
For Pritzker, the penalty was merely being denounced as a hypocrite, which rarely bothers politicians playing to the extreme parts of their parties. While Pritzker proclaimed that the Texas Democrats would remain safe under his protection in Illinois, the media just shrugged when the resistance collapsed and they returned home to collect their frozen salaries.
For others, it will prove more costly.
In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom tried nightly to out chestpound his fellow Democrats like Pritzker. Lacking the props of actual legislators used by his fellow presidential aspirant in Illinois, Newsom pledged that he would match Texas district for district if they went forward with their redistricting plan.
He then discovered that you cannot bluff with your cards facing the opposing players.
The problem is that states like California and Illinois are already heavily gerrymandered as are many Democratic states. In California, Republicans constituted roughly 40 percent of the congressional vote in 2024 but received only about 17 percent of the House seats. Pushing Republicans to near zero would be expensive and require districts that defy the laws of nature in their bizarre shapes. In comparison, Texas and many GOP-controlled states are largely untapped and can produce many more GOP districts with relatively easy changes.
Nevertheless, Newsom pledged that he would do it if they called his bluff. That will cost over $200 million to a state with a crippling deficit. In the meantime, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pledged that he could just as easily produce ten districts if California creates five new democratic seats. He could do it.
Newsom would also have to get around state law and the redistricting commission. Otherwise, his plan would go down in flames in the courts.
What Newsom lacks in authority, he has made up in volume. He went all caps with a threat to Trump: “STAND DOWN NOW OR CALIFORNIA WILL COUNTER-STRIKE (LEGALLY!) TO DESTROY YOUR ILLEGAL CROOKED MAPS IN RED STATES.”
The same is true for Gov. Cathy Hochul, who called such redistricting a “legal insurrection” and then pledged to lead her own insurrection. The problem, again, is that New York is already heavily gerrymandered. Harris received only 56% of the vote in 2024, but Democrats hold 73% of the state’s 26 House seats. Prior Democratic efforts at gerrymandering have been so extreme that courts struck them down.
Of course, Hochul is still better off in her bluff than Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey who pledged to retaliate if Texas moves forward despite the fact that the state’s prior gerrymandering has already reduced Republican districts to zero.
Similar efforts in states like Maryland have led to sharp rebukes from courts. Previously, Democrats turned to Marc Elias, who gained infamy as a key player in the Russian collusion hoax, to defend an outrageously gerrymandered redistricting. A court found the effort not only in violation of Maryland law but also of the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech, and free elections clauses. The court declared that the map pushed by Elias “subverts the will of those governed.”
Perhaps the worst bluff was made by Beto O’Rourke, who has repeatedly tried and failed to get elected as senator, governor, and president. With each defeat, O’Rourke seems to get more extreme and profane. After recently losing a court case barring him from continuing to raise money to fund the unlawful flight of the Democratic legislators, O’Rourke proclaimed he did not care what the law or the courts may say: “F**k the rules, we are going to win whatever it takes.”
O’Rourke is following the John McEnroe school of appealing court rulings, but the difference is that tennis officials cannot put you in jail for a court tantrum.
After his recent speech, I noted that O’Rourke appeared to be not only undermining his own appeal but begging for a contempt sanction.
Now, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is calling his bluff and asking for a contempt ruling. His main witness is likely to be O’Rourke himself in delighting a Democratic rally with statements like this:
“He [Paxton] tried to stop us from holding this rally here today in Fort Worth, he tried to stop us from raising money to support these Democrats in the fight—he lost—and one of the worst things that we could do to Ken Paxton is to right now choose to donate, to have the backs of these fighters… He is trying to stop us from raising the resources they [the Democrat statehouse fugitives] need to ultimately prevail and come through and we are not going to let him stop us. Are you with me on that?”
“F**k the rules” is not exactly a good argument to make to any judge.
Courts may soon explain to figures like O’Rourke what the “Captain” explained in Cool Hand Luke: “What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it… well, he gets it.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Chicongo, IL wants to draw Texas districts. That would make Texas an Estado Mexicano.
Take a look at how many Chicagoans were born in Mayheeco. IT’s an astounding nujmber.
In support of Lin with a similar spin
I have several good friends that are Mexican. They jumped the border for work long ago but I am so tired of them claiming undocumented migrant rather than illegal immigrant and declaring racial profiling along the border by ICE due to their appearance. Especially the members and supporters of La Raza….
Does this make me La Razaist?
Another solution to this gerrymandering would be to vastly increase the number of representatives. Why are we so beholden to 435 of them? Why not thousands? It would make the democratic nature of the House more direct if each representative had fewer constituents. We’d have fewer “salamander” districts. Make the population cap small enough and we’ll be able to split up some at-large districts as well, so this might not bite the low population states as much as expected.
More reps? That would require a a change to A1 S2.
There is this thing called the amendment process.
More reps? That would require a a change to A1 S2.
No, it wouldn’t. All it would require is a change to a federal statute. The current cap of 435 reps was invented by Congress about a century ago, and can just as easily be removed.
That is how many chairs there are.
It would be too hard to add more chairs.
So we are stuck with 435 chairs.
You think like a bureaucrat 😂
When Trump moves the capitol out of DC, we’ll just give them a larger building. Heh.
There’s no need for them all to have chairs. The UK House of Commons doesn’t have enough seating for all its members; when there’s a packed vote latecomers sit on the floor, or stand.
Thousands? It would be a hoot to see what the House chamber would look like. Even if they installed stadium seating all the way up to the gallery, they would probably not have enough room for all of them. Of course, if Trump succeeds in shrinking the size of the federal government, there might be sufficient office space available to give each of them their own office. Some of them might have to commute across town to get to the Capital building, but there are always a few who need the exercise anyways.
Let them phone in from their home districts. I’d rather have them near their constituents than in the DC swamp anyway. It’s the 21st century, let’s start acting like it.
21st century employers have already seen what a joke remote work and turn into. But with our modern Congress critters it probably wouldn’t make any difference.
Indeed. I also believe that if you take the “allure” of DC away from them, you’ll get a different and probably better class of representative. This was never supposed to be a career.
Beto is just a skinny white male non-gapped toothed Stacey Abrams. I. E. a loser.
No kidding hullbobby, what a buffoon. He’s the kind of pato that normal men want to evade after being exposed to his mierda. Can you imagine him as someone that could ever handle unchecked power, skateboarding the hallways of the Whitehouse? I think ALL these democratic SOCIALISTS should be forced to empty their pockets and sent to Cuba or Venezuela for a year to truly live their Utopian collective hive dream. Socialism only provides a decent living for the political class, the people still suck hind teat, a life of nothingness, you will own nothing, live in a government rundown apartment, eat a government diet, live a government life and die a government death. If you object, you will be punished, if you object enough you will be executed.
F#$k the rules is absolutely the plan for R’s and Texas was already heavily gerrymandered before this latest attempt to shield trump from oversight…, so that destroys your argument Turls. If Texas can squeeze 5 more seats out for president rat pelt California can squeeze 5 out for D’s…
And should.
As to what D’s accomplished? On the one hand, if they don’t ‘protect’ their own states, it’s all talk. Texas will cheat. Not only do they have to be matched, D’s need to go on the offensive in every blue state…
The R’s always have the advantage in gerrymandering due to their less populated states having proportionally more sway in elections affecting the nation as a whole, so there’s that…but D’s can’t sleep on the open corruption of the R’s anymore.
And in Texas, D’s made you R’s uncomfortable by airing out your corruption in public. Successful mission, Turley.
Party on dumb ass magats!!
I see that Gigi here is still as full of hate and bile as usual, and that she has no more of a grasp on reality than she did yesterday.
Aparently you can not read. As Turley already demonstrated – while both parties engage in gerrymandering – Democrats have already maxed out their ability to do so, Republicans have not gerrymandered to the extreme extent democrats have and therefore have room to increase the number of GOP seats in GOP states without fear of Democrat retaliation – because Democrats have already maxed out their gerrymandering.
Yes, Republicans have a small natural advantage – Democrats self gerrymander themselves heavily into cities.
That is a life choice individual democrats make that has little to do with politics. It is also one of the reasons that the fight over gerrymandering is mostly nonsense.
There is no correct way to allocate legislative districts. There are too many factors that have little to do with politics that make any conception of correct or fair impossible.
As an example in a state that is 51:49 republican and has one large city that is 73% democrat – there is no rational way to establish legislative districts that is not going to result in a large GOP majority – Because if that large city is 73% democrat – that means throughout the rest of the state Republicans will have a solid majority.
No one forced democrats to concentrate in cities.
Further trying to chop up the city and create a bunch of districts that were 51% democrat by incorpoerating slices of the city is actually a bad idea for those city democrats.
What is the purpose of a congressional district ? Is it to represent the interests of the people or to advance the interests of the party ? Demcrats living in cities SHOULD have representatives that reflect the interests of those in cities – NOT the interests of their party – just as rural farm communities should have representatives that reflect the interests of rural farm communities.
My point is that whatever your argument for some “objective” standard for legislative districts you WILL have unintended (or worse still intended) negtive impacts on various different groups that inadvertantly distribute in ways that conflict with YOUR purportedly objective criteria.
Actually, I leave the functional illiteracy to you, Johnny Say.
Texas, being more gerrymandered than California to begin with, is angling for 5 more seats. California, by itself, has the capacity to actually surpass that number. Even if Turley pulls out of his ass the supposition that there isn’t room for it.
You, being as gullible and clueless as you clearly are, can’t seem to grasp that.
Why do you expect to make such a blatant lie about the Texas map and expect not to be called out on it? In no way is Texas now, or even with the new map, as badly gerrymandered as California. You’re so full of it your eyes are brown.
From Verdict with Ted Cruz: Texas Dems Surrender-Explaining Dem Redistricting Hypocrisy Nationwide, Aug 13, 2025
“Now Texas, Texas right now today, Texas, 56% of the state in 2024 voted Republican. Our map, we have 38 seats in it, 24 Republicans, 14 Democrats. That means that right now in Texas, 54% of the Republicans elect 63% of the congressional delegation.
So it’s slightly more than the statewide percentage, but not nearly as egregious as the other states. Now what Texas is doing is redrawing the districts so that five new Republicans are likely to be elected. So instead of breaking down 24-14, it is likely to break down 29-29.
That means that we would go from 63% of the congressional delegation being Republican, we would go from that to 76%. Now 76% is still lower than California, which is 83%. It is lower than Illinois, which is 82%, and it’s obviously lower than Massachusetts, which is 100%.”
Here’s another gem:
“the 38% of Californians that vote Republican get a total of 17% of the congressional delegation.”
Why are you such a terrible liar?
You’re leaving out the elephant in the room. California’s maps are determined by an independent commission made up of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 Independents. Texas gerrymanders according to one party. California is less gerrymandered than Texas that is true. Texas may have the ability to map out 5 more seats perhaps a few more if they manage to ram through a more aggressive map. California can produce more seats than Texas if they really put an effort and the independent commission is persuaded to do it.
A gerrymander “war” could potentially nullify the Texas gerrymander and really mess up the mid-terms with constant court challenges and muddying the waters. Trump is a master at creating chaos and taking advantage of it. He may or may not succeed depending on how far he manages to cheat with Texas.
“You’re leaving out the elephant in the room. California’s maps are determined by an independent commission made up of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 Independents.”
California “Republican”, now there’s a joke these days. And your “independents” are probably out and out communists that consider your already insane Democrats to be too right-wing.
“Texas gerrymanders according to one party.”
They control the government.
“California is less gerrymandered than Texas that is true.”
Literally just showed that is not true.
“Texas may have the ability to map out 5 more seats perhaps a few more if they manage to ram through a more aggressive map.”
Not even hard for Texas, as they are currently nowhere near as gerrymandered as is routine for leftist states.
“California can produce more seats than Texas if they really put an effort and the independent commission is persuaded to do it.”
I’d love to see how you could possibly squeeze any more juice out of that orange when you’re at freaking 83% right now. Are you planning to just shove the Republicans into gas chambers?
“A gerrymander “war” could potentially nullify the Texas gerrymander and really mess up the mid-terms with constant court challenges and muddying the waters. Trump is a master at creating chaos and taking advantage of it. He may or may not succeed depending on how far he manages to cheat with Texas.”
Nonsense on stilts. Have a nice day, done with you.
Are you one of those idiots that complain about “gerrymandered” Senate seats? 🤣🤣🤣
Gigi, why are you ignoring the fact that you got called out on your whopper of a lie about the Texas district maps?
John Say, I assume the same can be said for heavily gerrymandered Republican states. The Texas case represents an outlier in that they are redistricting because President Trump wants them to to add 5 seats he believes he’s entitled to. A mid-decade redistricting, which Demorats have not done in my view, looks more like an attempt to rig the upcoming mid-terms instead of a genuine need to redistrict.
“John Say, I assume the same can be said for heavily gerrymandered Republican states. The Texas case represents an outlier in that they are redistricting because President Trump wants them to to add 5 seats he believes he’s entitled to. A mid-decade redistricting, which Demorats have not done in my view, looks more like an attempt to rig the upcoming mid-terms instead of a genuine need to redistrict.”
There are no “heavily gerrymandered Republican states”. And mid-census redistricts happen all the time. Texas in fact did one in 2003, and funny enough, the Democrats also fled the state then. It didn’t work out for them back then either. Why do you insult us by not doing even the most basic research before you bother posting your falsehoods?
So just one other time in 2003? How is that “all the time? When were the other times?
Texas is a heavily Republican gerrymandered state. Republicans hold every state government office.
“So just one other time in 2003? How is that “all the time? When were the other times?”
One example is enough to demonstrate that you’re wrong.
“Texas is a heavily Republican gerrymandered state.”
Absolutely false. From Verdict with Ted Cruz: Texas Dems Surrender-Explaining Dem Redistricting Hypocrisy Nationwide, Aug 13, 2025:
“Now Texas, Texas right now today, Texas, 56% of the state in 2024 voted Republican. Our map, we have 38 seats in it, 24 Republicans, 14 Democrats. That means that right now in Texas, 54% of the Republicans elect 63% of the congressional delegation.
So it’s slightly more than the statewide percentage, but not nearly as egregious as the other states. Now what Texas is doing is redrawing the districts so that five new Republicans are likely to be elected. So instead of breaking down 24-14, it is likely to break down 29-9.
That means that we would go from 63% of the congressional delegation being Republican, we would go from that to 76%. Now 76% is still lower than California, which is 83%. It is lower than Illinois, which is 82%, and it’s obviously lower than Massachusetts, which is 100%.”
Why don’t you do any research before posting? Do you like appearing stupid and uninformed?
“Republicans hold every state government office.”
Irrelevant. Do you even know what gerrymandering is?
What has actually occured is democrats have once again picked a fight that ultimately exposed their own corruption and hypocracy.
The fight against the “brazen” efforts of TX republicans to do in TX what democrats have already done in blue states has accomplished nothing except expose the hypocracy and corruption of democrats.
Masses of people would be rising to challenge Republicans Trump and Abbott – if democrat states like CA, IL, MA, MD, …. were not far more gerrymandered.
Remember when you point your finger at others – 4 fingers are always pointing back at you.
It is unwise to hurl accusations at others when YOU are doing what you are accusing them of doing.
No tofu for you!
You can always depended upon to turn everything topsy curvy. Up is down, and down is up.
Why not have permanent districts?
Population shifts. The districts have to be equal population.
Also, sometimes states lose or gain a seat after a census.
Why not accept that the districts can have fractional populations? Then the districts can compete for citizens, like cities and states do.
“Why not accept that the districts can have fractional populations? Then the districts can compete for citizens, like cities and states do.”
We do not have fractional Electors.
A full investor can still own fractional shares of stock.
By “fractional populations” I’m assuming you mean different populations. Most states only redistrict after a census. In the intervening 10 years the populations do start to vary as people relocate, are born, or die. The rule of equal populations only applies to the once-a-decade redistricting effort. It comes from the Supreme Court (Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964).
Also, cities and states have governments that can set tax and business policy and compete for citizens and businesses. Congressional districts don’t.
OMFK – redistricting can occur anytime. But the population numbers used are from the deca-annual census.
I would note that the census bureau provides regular updates to populations based on surveys and modeling and is reasonably accurate at estimating population shifts between census’s.
I strongly suspect that a state can use the estimated population to redistrict.
What it can not do is increase or decrease its number of representatives EXCEPT after the actual census.
Estimaded population? I thought the purpose of a census every decade is to have an accurate count. Not an estimate. The point of the census is to count every person and that is what determines new district lines.
“What it can not do is increase or decrease its number of representatives EXCEPT after the actual census.”
So Texas adding 5 more seats mid-decade long after the post census redisctricting would be in violation of the law?
The purpose of Texas redistricting is not because of updated census surveys and data. It’s already well known that President Trump is pushing for it because he believes he’s entitled to 5 more seats. Governor Abbott was very reluctant to do this prior to this whole mess. Abbott and Texas Republicans are obviously capitulating to the president’s demand for 5 more seats. It’s reminescent of the famous Georgia phone call asking to “find” more votes.
“Estimaded population? I thought the purpose of a census every decade is to have an accurate count. Not an estimate. The point of the census is to count every person and that is what determines new district lines.
“What it can not do is increase or decrease its number of representatives EXCEPT after the actual census.”
So Texas adding 5 more seats mid-decade long after the post census redisctricting would be in violation of the law?
The purpose of Texas redistricting is not because of updated census surveys and data. It’s already well known that President Trump is pushing for it because he believes he’s entitled to 5 more seats. Governor Abbott was very reluctant to do this prior to this whole mess. Abbott and Texas Republicans are obviously capitulating to the president’s demand for 5 more seats. It’s reminescent of the famous Georgia phone call asking to “find” more votes.”
First off, learn to use the damned spell checker that’s quite literally built into your device.
Secondly, as I just demonstrated to you above, mid-census redistricting is not illegal or even abnormal.
The rest of your fact-free rant is just as inane. Why do you come here just to demonstrate how stupid and uninformed you are?
I never said mid-decade redistricting is illegal. Nobody is saying that.
It is abnormal though. It’s rarer than common.
You whine a lot for sure.
YOU: “I never said mid-decade redistricting is illegal. Nobody is saying that.”
YOU: “So Texas adding 5 more seats mid-decade long after the post census redisctricting would be in violation of the law?”
Gee, sure sounds like YOU are questioning the legality.
“It is abnormal though. It’s rarer than common.”
Irrelevant to legality.
“You whine a lot for sure.”
Just because I’m so tired of seeing clowns like you who come in here and bloviate without having the slightest knowledge of the topic other than a few misleading talking points from yet another crazed leftist source. You’re also really bad at trolling, so I encourage you to go elsewhere where your limited intelligence may not be as much of a burden. Thank you.
What a maroon. No, Texas is NOT adding any seats, you idiot! How could you even come up with such a stupid and obviously false idea? Texas has 38 seats, and there is no way to change that until after the next census.
Trump has raised the possibility of doing a new census now instead of waiting for 2030, and he can probably do that (though he can’t exclude illegal aliens from it), and if he does then states’ apportionments will change with it, but for now Texas only has the same 38 seats and no one is trying to increase it to 43!
If you didn’t understand this already, then all you have shown is that you are so profoundly ignorant of the subject that you should sit down and shut up. Save your comments for topics on which you actually know something, assuming there are any.
Oh, and Abbott was NOT reluctant to do anything, nor does Trump have anything to do with it. The entire premise that TX is doing this at Trump’s behest is stupid and wrong. Trump is merely cheering from the sidelines, as well he should.
People might want to move to a district that does good things for its citizens, and they might want to move out of a district that does bad things to the citizens. So there is an incentive to good things for the citizens.
Districts don’t do anything for their residents. (They don’t have citizens.) Good or bad. So how can they compete with each other? What services do you imagine they could provide? They’re not even entities; they have no “self” that could provide things for their residents if “they” wanted to! A district is literally an area on a map and nothing else.
What does this even mean ?
The arrangement of legislative districts will ALWAYS be a problem – as it ALWAYS has.
There is no objectively correct way to create districts.
Personally I think the courts should get out of it.
Let each party do egregious things, and let the people in that state decide whether they like it.
Further – and importantly – redistricting to gain seats for your party ALWAYS comes at the risk that very small shifts in voting will result in massive shifts in representation.
If you have a state that is 51:49 and redistricting results in all 51:49 districts – if voters shift 1.1% then every single district flips and you go from total one party control to total the other party control.
Further redistricting to gain seats goes against the natural inclanation of powerful representatives to secure SAFE SEATS. In a state that is 51:49 – there are nearly always several powerful representatives from each party that want redistricting to assure that they hold a seat they can never lose – look at the decades long members of congress – they represent districts that are created such that they will never lose. For a party to increase its seats it MUST reduce the number of safe seats.
Again – gerrymandering is a self correcting and manufactured problem.
Absolutely it is something that occurs. For most of US history – and even today the impetus is to create SAFE SEATS not to increase total seats – and the FACT that there are so many safe seats should be damning evidence of that.
Regardless, the net impact of republicans massively gerrymandering and democrats massively gerrymandering will be a net change of a few seats TOTAL at most, But it will significantly increase the political instability of congress – resulting in sweep elections where one party or the other is massively removed from power.
That is not in either parties actual interests – which is why gerrymandering to create safe seats has always been the historical norm.
Leave all of this alone, while it will not “fix itself”. The results will NOT truly alter anything, and it gives politicians plenty of oportunity to look hypocritical which is harmful to them and good for people.
John Say, you sound like you oppose what Texas is trying to do without really saying it.
Why not just overlay the map with a checkerboard pattern and be done with it. A blind way to ensure no shenanigans.
Zip codes would be better. But then zip codes do change.
Excellent idea!
Because populations change and shift.
Russia collusion hoax seems a tad innocent. Hey, it was just a hoax! Sorry if you were offended. I would propose using “fraud” or “crime” instead.
The hoax was just a hoax – a political dirty trick – not a crime. That is best punished by the voters.
But leaking classified information, Using the FBI to violate civil rights under color of law, makign false reports of crimes to the FBI, obstructing justice and conspiring to do the above and more –
THESE are actual crimes and must be prosecuted.
It is absolutely critical that Trump/Bondi’s DOJ follows the letter of the law. Prosecutes ACTUAL crimes without animus or favor, and does NOT weaponize law enforcement to prosecute anyone for things that are NOT crimes.
Trump’s DOJ looks more interested in presecution for vengeance. Not the law.
“Trump’s DOJ looks more interested in presecution for vengeance. Not the law.”
What’s “presecution”? Have you ever tried using a spellchecker in your life?
No, it doesn’t.
A couple of things: “F**k the rules” seems to be the behavior being displayed by many of the activist judges so to say that it “is not exactly a good argument to make to any judge” does not accurately assess the state of our judicial system. And Republicans are best at pointing out Dem hypocrisy for which “the penalty was merely being denounced as a hypocrite” and doing very little else. Trump seems to be the only elected politician in DC there to do a job.
There should be a constitutional amendment which states that
you have a right not to be punished for what you express. This should help
to bolster free speech, which is under constant attack.
See the 1st Amendment.
Someone should have told DHS when they arrested Mamoud Khalil and Ozturk and sought to punish them for expressing their opinions.
Waaaah, your poor Hamas supporting nutjobs got arrested? Who cares, I want them out of my country, and will not be satisfied until they’re busy chanting Hamas slogans while standing in Gaza.
Am I the only one who’s worrying about the carbon footprint of progressives who flew the coop for naught, other than virtue signalling?
I think they should have to answer for this! Think of the setback to efforts to stop global warming!
No one cares. Bigger issues. Thank you.
It just further points out the hypocrisy of the flee-bags. Guaranteed that they have all cried and moaned about the “threat” from climate change.
It was a sarcastic comment. I’d hoped for a smile . . . Ah well. Can’t win ’em all!
Oh. [Sarcasm]. And you’re welcome. [/Sarcasm]
Not one mention in the post about how gerrymandering is anti-democratic and needs to be banned for all states.
Rs need to be careful. It’s been estimated that 9 million people voted first for Obama in either ’08 or ’12, then for Trump in ’16. If accurate, that is a very sizeable chunk of swing voters who are not at all loyal to either party who can be easily swayed.
If Ds ever manage to get their act together, this redistricting play could come back to bite the GOP.
“Rs need to be careful. It’s been estimated that 9 million people voted first for Obama in either ’08 or ’12, then for Trump in ’16. If accurate, that is a very sizeable chunk of swing voters who are not at all loyal to either party who can be easily swayed.”
What about the extra millions who voted for Biden in 2020 but then magically vanished by 2024? 😂
You are correct – but D’s not only show no sign of getting their act together they are actively seeking to alienate those voters.
I would further note that Democrats are suffering from a serious problem they have had for decades
Young people, immigrant groups and poorer people tend to vote democrat.
But they also become more conservative as they age, as they are in the country longer and as they improve their standard of living.
Those who have little or nothing tend to want govenrment to provide for them.
Those who have had to work for what they have tend to be much more suspicious of government.
The standard of living of minorities increased very little under Obama, it increased by about 10% under Trump, it declined by almost 10% under Biden.
That is a HUGE deal and had a massive impact on voting.
Republicans need to continue to deliver rising standards of living for minorities.
But democrats offers of more free things is NOT what these voters want.
They want more oportunities to improve their own lives.
Trump – more so than any prior president of either party delivered on that in his first term.
I would strongly suggest that people of both parties READ the Trump Platform – both in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
For good reason people Trust Trump to deliver on those commitments.
They do NOT care about the day to day nonsense – so long as their lives are improved AS PROMISED.
I would further note that Trump is the “bill clinton” of Republicans – he has taken issues that Democrats owned and he has made them his own. But WORSE – unlike Gingrich and rupublicans in the 90s – Democrats have abandoned those issues to Trump – often taking the opposite side.
While Republicans impeached Clinton for sexual pecadillos, they also worked with him to pass welfare reform and to strengthen the economy in ways that benefited the poor and working class. Millions of people got off of welfare – and NOT into abject poverty but into JOBS, self reliance and better lives.
Trump is doing much the same thing – though often using DEMOCRAT pro labor policies to do so – Tarrifs, no tax on tips, enforcing immigration laws, fair trade – these all not just improve the country, but SPECIFICALLY improve the lot of US working class citizens.
Absolutely, deporting illegal immigrants HURTS those illegal immigrants, particularly those who are NOT criminals.
But it increases jobs and wages for working class people.
Tarrifs MAY be overall economically harmful – that is not absolutely clear.
But they ARE beneficial to the US working class – they increase the price of foreign goods competing with US goods, they increase the incentive to buy US made goods and to produce US made goods with US workers.
There is a long complex argument about the NET economic benefit or harm. But there is no doubt at all that the US working class is the winner.
Losers are those that Democrats in the past have villified – the billionaire class – Trump’s Tax breaks benefit them personally far less than democrats claim. The money of billionaires is invested and that investment benefits workers.
Reduced taxes on investment benefits the working class.
But Tariffs, reduced immigration harm the billionaire class and benefit the working class – which is why past democrats championed them.
It is possible – though it appears unlikely that they also are mildly negative for the economy overall. But politically Republicans have lost the upper classes in this country regardless, Screwing them has little political cost.
Benefiting the working class takes a core voting block from democrats and moves them to republicans.
This has not only been successful for Republicans – Democrats nuclear war approach and failure to do as Gingrich did, and try to share responsibility rather than to go to war with Clinton over popular policies that benefited the working class, makes it highly unlikely any of those voters are returning to the democratic party.
Is Newsome, Pritzker, AOC, Schiff, Coonts, Beto or any of the leaders of the democratic party ding what Gingrich did and working with Trump for the benefit of those swing voters ? No! They are at war with Trump, and they are at war with the voters they want back.
We are almost certainly in the midst of a major US political realignment (also a global realignment)
Right now things are chaotic – but absent photos of Trump with has penis up the ass of a 13yr old boy
democrats have picked the losing side of the fight.
The chaos is NOT sustainable. Eventually things will stabalize. When they do – the Nazi, Nazi, Nazi nonsense will not work anymore.
Outside of deluded true beleivers it already does not.
Rational people think you are a looney if you are ranting about Trump being a Nazi.
Professor, I would appreciate reading a learned piece on why, oh why, the Supreme Court allows these shenanigans to continue. By both parties. Clearly people are being deprived of the “equal protection of the laws”.
“By both parties.”
There is no comparison between the gerrymandering done by Democrats compared to the lukewarm, at best, practices of Republicans. Don’t even try to compare the two.
“For the times they are a changing…” Libs are facing a true and sweeping revolution. The good old days when they dominated the media are disappearing. “Your old road is rapidly aging-
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.”
They have no idea what is actually taking place right under their noses. Their responses to this upheaval are hilarious. They are confuzzled. What a delightful spectacle for hundreds of millions who have watched them jam their views down our throats.
Right now, their diseased thinking results in a demand that Trump must be prevented from fighting deadly violence against Americans.
I do think far too many of the original prog crew that has been directing the dems for decades partook of far too many of those “mushrooms” that Jefferson Airplane was singing about and now they are truly wandering in wonderland.
The Supreme Court had a chance in 2019, but they ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a “non-justiciable” political question (legalese for: federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to decide it).
This leaves the individual state supreme courts to say whether the state constitution allows partisan gerrymander or not. If a state supreme court rules that it violates the state constitution, then that same court adjudicates specific challenges to a given map.
I second that request!
Of course the best was when the governor of MA, Maura Healy, said she would retaliate…and MA has democrats sitting in ALL nine of their house seats.
MA has had FOUR Republican governors over the last 30 years and no Republican members of congress??? How is that possible without gerrymandering being used to great effect? Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate as a Republican, but ZERO House Republicans???
Now the morons on the left think that they can do more gerrymandering, but that is virtually impossible at this point, while red states have lots of juicy opportunities to make gains.
It’s not just Massachusetts. I read somewhere that there is not a single Republican congressman in all of New England.
100% correct!
You’re just repeating Turleys commentary. Stoopid is as stoopid does.
Anonymous doing what Anonymous does…nothing.
“You’re just repeating Turleys commentary. Stoopid is as stoopid does.”
Well, we’re definitely all better informed on the issue thanks to the tireless criticism of Anonymous here. Bravo.
Anonymous 8:33 AM- Right back at you Anonymous. Is that your new word of the day?
When it comes to Anonymous, like the captain said, some men (women) can’t be reached. She spends her entire day here in her vindictive performance. You hope to change her position with reasoned logic but some women just can’t be reached. It’s just like an arsonist fascinated by fire who spends a couple of years in prison and when he is released he has learned nothing and is still an arsonist. Not so cool after all.
JT mentioned laws in California, Texas, Illinois, and New York as bulwarks against incendiary actions by politicians. Laws work only when judges themselves follow the rules. I do not have a high degree of confidence in that, given the growing political polarization of law school faculties and among lawyers. We can’t take good judges for granted.
Their hypocritcal acts of “destroying democracy and the rule of law to save democracy and the rule of law” is wearing thin. Truly, we are living in the Twilight Zone and we are a razor-thin distance away from losing the country beyond her 250 years of life.
Or a second civil war.
5 years ago I would say there would be no consequences for these antics- but there is a new sheriff in town and one that has a whole lot of very principled deputies. It appears that the conservative base and leadership has finally grown a spine.
It’s pretty obvious here that the Republicans have suckered their opponents into playing a hand they are destined to lose. It was brilliant and previously untried. Yes, the Democrats literally wrote the book on redistricting to get more seats, and the numbers prove that beyond any doubt in places like NY, CA, and IL. As Byron York says, the Democrats “have squeezed all the juice from that lemon.”
Now, Republicans are seeking to redistrict Texas to gain five seats. Whammo, this unleashes the media hornets and the leading voices for the Democrats to yell foul, treason, sedition, capital murder, etc. But, the more they yell, the more it becomes obvious that they played this hand a long time ago – and won – and now it’s the other guy’s chance to play the same hand against them. Brilliant!
As a friend of mine says: Them’s the new rules
JJC,
I would argue it is not the Republicans who have suckered Democrats into a losing hand but Democrats dealt themselves a losing hand. Not just on redistricting but a whole host of other bad policies.
This is true. They should have just let it go and not created the fuss that caused people to look at them. Good point.
“There’s nothing a leftist hates more than being held to their own standards.” –Derek Hunter
Think of it…the depth of Beto O’Rourke as a politician is to skateboard on to the stage. Instead of offering substance and ideas that work, he offers vitriol and chaos, lawlessness in the face of the court. Beto and Crockett are the best things to happen to Republicans in Texas!
Just kids just never grow up… Beto, manchild.
Agreed! Now please get the f*ck rid of them!!!!
“Beto” O’Rourke is a faded member of the Democrat Clown Show, the DCS, which has descended into a freak show. It’s never good to have massively overweight or blue- or pomaded- hair narcissists bellowing out their concerns for “working families” or “democracy.” The DCS today is mostly fodder for the NY Post’s “Page Six,” where we learn of the tragic consequences of having to wait in line for a table at a restaurant most of us could never afford. The DCS is not tragedy. It’s the Colbert style of comedy-DEAD PAN.
I wish I could post a pic of Beto here. It’s priceless. He must have been totally stoned when it was taken. Shows him for the utter shallow, inconsequential fool that he is.
And, living high on the hog from his wife’s wealth curtesy of her father who achieved his success in real estate in Chicago. Sanders was the next door neighbor of my boss and I’ll never forget seeing him for the first time driving perfectly good golf balls far out into Lake Michigan from a tee in his backyard on a bluff overlooking the Lake. Conspicuous consumption on full display. Wonderful.
Texas Democrat lawmakers are not only cowards, they are stupid cowards, as are the majority of Democrat lawmakers elsewhere. If ever there were a genuine threat to “democracy,” it would be the effort to paralyze the normal operations of democracy. Full stop.