Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (1572491)	11/19/2025 3:37:33 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575946

CJ, While I agree that partisan gerrymandering needs to be ruled unconstitutional and undemocratic, that'd be awkward with the present court. In Trump's first administration, they decided that it was too difficult to decide the issue, so the court had no say as to partisan gerrymandering. That's right. It's not an area that the Supreme Court really wants to wander into. They'd rather leave the districting to the states, even if it's corrupt as hell, because they don't want the federal government setting too many rules here. I really don't know how that jibes with the history of gerrymandering, especially with the Deep South's history in disenfranchising minority voters. I guess some might consider it a return to the Jim Crow era, while others might consider an overreaching federal government to be the greater of two evils. One thing is for sure, though. The party of "states rights" has largely given up their whole "states rights" ideology in favor of centralized authoritarianism. That ironically might pave the way toward some federal action against gerrymandering. Tenchusatsu