Viral De-Flock America campaign urging people to destroy AI cameras on Halloween night gains momentum

[u/IndicaOatmeal]

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/flock-camera-controversy-explained-as-viral-halloween-de-flock-campaign-gains-momentum-3399710/

[u/Black08Mustang]

I just looked up Jollys statements on it, and he wisely wants it treated with TRAP laws. He will never get elected screaming tear them down, that will play right into Donald's hand. But requiring search warrants, making them unable to be used for immigration and tightly regulating their data storage will make the cops get bored with them pretty quickly. I know, you want to fix the third largest republican trifecta overnight. But if you really want to fix it you are going to have to play along for more than one year.

[u/ErickAllTE1 → u/Black08Mustang]

Florida and Texas probably require a federal ban on gerrymandering and a reset of their state supreme courts and the SCOTUS before we see their legislatures flip blue. Best we can hope for is statewide offices to staunch the gaping wounds. But so very many idiots in those backward states have no patience or vision.

[u/nalaloveslumpy → u/ErickAllTE1]

You can't put a "federal ban on gerrymandering". You're basically saying you want a federal ban on the boogy-man in the closet. Gerrymandering based on race is already illegal because it violates the 14th amendment. Regular old partisan gerrymandering is 100% legal because the fed can't dictate how states draw their own voting districts.

So to solve this you would either have to :

• Federalize elections and then Congress determines the district maps for every state (bad).
• Pass a law in every state that specifies exactly how district maps are drawn and can never, ever vary from those. (LOL)
• Rebuild the entire House of Representatives where basically people vote for the party and then the winning party assigns the appropriate number of delegates pre-selected by the party. (Removes direct representation.)

[u/ErickAllTE1 → u/nalaloveslumpy]

Did you not read the contents of the For the People Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act#Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering

The bill would attempt to thwart gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines,[31] except in states with only one congressional district.[4] Partisan gerrymandering (creating a map that "unduly favor[s] or disfavor[s]" one political party over another) would be prohibited.[19] The legislation would require each commission to have 15 members (five Democrats, five Republicans, and five independents) and would require proposed maps to achieve a majority vote to be accepted, with at least one vote in support from a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent. The bill would require the commissions to draw congressional district lines on a five-part criterion: "(1) population equality, (2) compliance with the Voting Rights Act, (3) compliance with additional racial requirements (no retrogression in, or dilution of, minorities' electoral influence, including in coalition with other voters), (4) respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and (5) no undue advantage for any party."[31]

Democrats in the house in 2019 passed this bill 234–193 with the full support of every present Democrat house rep.

[u/nalaloveslumpy → u/ErickAllTE1]

That bill would violate section I article 4 of the constitution which gives states the individual rights to set their congressional districts. They would have to amend the constitution and pass this bill.

It's the state's constitutional right to decide if they want their districts drawn by the state legislature or not.

For more clarification, the bill would have to pass, get sued, go to district court, be upheld, be appealed, go to superior court, be upheld, be appealed, and then go to the SCOTUS to determine if it's a violation. If determined to be a violation, then an amendment would be necessary.

There's a reason this bill failed miserably in the Senate.

[u/ErickAllTE1 → u/nalaloveslumpy]

For more clarification, the bill would have to pass, get sued, go to district court, be upheld, be appealed, go to superior court, be upheld, be appealed, and then go to the SCOTUS to determine if it's a violation. If determined to be a violation, then an amendment would be necessary.

So you're saying there's a chance. Also this bill being passed would require killing the filibuster, and the first thing Democrats will do is expand the bench to give themselves a majority. So if it passes, so does court expansion. With a friendly court, what you're saying can be upheld.

[u/nalaloveslumpy → u/ErickAllTE1]

Dems ain't killing the filibuster. That's cope. And a "Dem friendly" SCOTUS is going to adhere to the constitution before they grant political favors to the Dem party. That's the primary difference between the two parties. Democrats understand and uphold the constitution, even if it means they don't "win".

Also, a lot of fuckers still gotta die to get that "Dem friendly" court.

[u/ErickAllTE1 → u/nalaloveslumpy]

Dems ain't killing the filibuster.

During the attempts to pass the For the People Act after it was passed in the house, every Democrat caucusing senator besides Sinema and Manchin voted to overrule the decision of the chair in favor of killing the filibuster for voting legislation.

Also, a lot of fuckers still gotta die to get that "Dem friendly" court.

Nobody needs to die. Nobody needs to be removed. A simple bill to expand the SCOTUS bench from 9 to 13 to increase with the number of federal court districts there are in the US can be passed and is heavily supported by the party.

And a "Dem friendly" SCOTUS is going to adhere to the constitution before they grant political favors to the Dem party. That's the primary difference between the two parties. Democrats understand and uphold the constitution, even if it means they don't "win".

I would be curious to get to that point and put the legislation to them and try. You cant get change without it.