[Harimwakairi]

> What the elected, Republican majority legislature voted for is not "crass disregard for the democratic process".

The fact that the judiciary has the power to stop them does not make what they did any more or less acceptable. Gerrymandering the state specifically to subvert the will of the voting population is crass disregard for the democratic process.

[fortythirteen]

Which is why the judiciary deemed it unconstitutional! You make my point for me.

[cardamomo]

It should not be the goal of any elected official or member our federal or state governments to pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions. I agree with you that judicial review is an important tool to remove such laws after they've been passed, but the current trend in U.S. federal and state legislatures is to find both blatant and subtle ways to circumvent our constitutions.

[nikkev]

You're grossly missing the point. If your kid steals money from your wallet, you catch them and punish them. That does not make what they did right just because they were punished and you deemed their behavior unacceptable. What if you didn't find out? Or what if you decided to look the other way because it was only five dollars?

[heavenlyblue]

Sadly, but a morally speaking you're then getting into the same territory as it is with the sex offenders; who having offended once are stained for the rest of their lives.

There is a reason why there's a statute of limitations, but neither does it mean that the current punishment is enough.

Let's talk children, as you say - you would punish a child, yet you would not mark him as a morally corrupted person forever; the punishment just needs to be severe enough.