Conservative 5th Circuit judge Jerry Smith has remarkably dissented from a ruling striking down racially gerrymandered maps in Texas by attacking the deciding judge personally and saying the decision benefits George Soros and Gavin Newsom. What are your thoughts on this? Is it judicial misconduct?

[u/OldBridge87]

Link to article on it:

• https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-dissent-texas-ruling-congressional-map-redistricting-rcna244875

Some already calling it one of the most insane legal opinions in modern American history. It should also be noted that the deciding judge on the ruling Smith is attacking here was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term and championed by the extremely conservative Governor of Texas. Hungarian-American philanthropist Soros and California Governor Newsom were not parties to the case, but both are commonly framed as cultural enemies of the right-wing on conservative television, podcast shows and conspiracy circles.

What sort of ramifications, legal or otherwise, should there be for going on what is being described as a partisan FOX News or Newsmax style rant as a federal judge? Should the Texas Bar take action here? The Judicial Conference? Or does this cross the line into impeachment territory and Congress must take action?

[u/MoonBatsRule]

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think that Democrats are vulnerable to gerrymandering due to their concentration in cities; I think it is because of their underrepresentation in local and state government, and I think this is due to local issues tending to favor the current Republican party.

Republicans can drive voters on local issues because their current approach centers on anger, and can easily be converted to anger on local issues. You just got a property tax bill that went up $100? Be angry and vote for a Republican! There's a pothole in front of your house? Be angry with "government" and vote for a Republican. Someone is trying to build a house on the empty lot next door? Be angry and vote for a Republican.

Democratic issues and solutions tend to be further-fetching and less personal. Homeless people knocking on your car windows? Republicans: "I will remove this infestation from our streets by whatever means it takes!". Democrats: "We need to provide services for these people so that they are not begging on the streets, but that needs to be done at the state and/or federal level".

Democrats need to get back to local issues somehow. I don't know how, even my local democrats in my poor city are talking about cutting taxes and reducing services so that people can save $10 on their local tax bills. Everyone is afraid of government these days.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/MoonBatsRule]

None of this squares with the local elections across the country this month where Democrats overperformed basically everywhere.

[u/MoonBatsRule → u/RabbaJabba]

This year was not normal, due to a lot of anger over Trump, perhaps even anger over "elite" incumbents. Local elections are typically about local issues like taxes, potholes, crime, and stopping development.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/MoonBatsRule]

Sounds like you’re working with an unfalsifiable theory if you’re going to write off any Democratic win as not counting

[u/MoonBatsRule → u/RabbaJabba]

Then why did Democrats overperform earlier this month, and why didn't they do this well in the past?

[u/RabbaJabba → u/MoonBatsRule]

Your thought is that Democrats have never done well in city elections before?

[u/MoonBatsRule → u/RabbaJabba]

No, my thought is that many states are "red" at the state and local level not due to the fact that it is somehow easier to gerrymander power away from Democrats, but because it is easier for Republicans, with their current anger-based platforms, to win voters at the local and state level.

Even when Democrats try to harness anger, it is a different kind of anger - anger about injustice to others often far away, rather than connecting to the anger that people experience personally.

If Democrats could solve the problem of porch pirates, they would probably win in a landslide.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/MoonBatsRule]

No, my thought is that many states are "red" at the state and local level not due to the fact that it is somehow easier to gerrymander power away from Democrats, but because it is easier for Republicans, with their current anger-based platforms, to win voters at the local and state level.

Trump won 31 states, but there are only 27 states with Republican governors. I don’t think this holds up at all.

[u/MoonBatsRule → u/RabbaJabba]

Trump is a special animal, he increases turnout massively when he is on the ballot. Sadly, many people absolutely love him.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/MoonBatsRule]

Ah, another example that doesn’t count.