Kind of a wild day for SCOTUS

[fskimospy]

At the federal level I doubt there's much of a perceived net gain in allowing unlimited gerrymandering from both sides, so I do think a bipartisan consensus could be formed to prohibit some of the more egregious practices. If the positive advantage gained by GOP in NC is offset by advantages gained by Dems in WI then it's a zero sum game with both sides losing public confidence that elections are fair and honest. I'm guessing some of the more widely accepted "best practices" like compactness, continguity, etc. could be agreed to by both sides since neither inherently helps either side.

I think there is a large perceived net gain for Republicans from gerrymandering, a perception that is accurate. This also opens the floodgates for race based gerrymandering as political party and race are extremely highly correlated, especially in the south. Now states can racially gerrymander to their heart's content and simply say that it was a legal political gerrymander, not a racial one. Like I said, the only way to stop this now is to get a democratic majority on the court to overturn this ruling. It will now be an arms race in every state where one party controls the legislature where they will attempt to permanently disenfranchise the voters of the opposition party.

Just look at Pennsylvania, my home state! Democrats won the election for state senate by eight points and the election for the assembly by nine points and didn't take control of either chamber. Despite winning by nine points they lost control of the assembly by TWENTY seats. It wasn't even close despite a historically huge Democratic wave. There's literally no way the Democrats can ever regain power over the state legislature in Pennsylvania until the maps are redrawn. If that doesn't violate the basic principles of Democracy I don't know what does.

 

[Jhhnn]

How did them saying "there's no federal law for us to rule on here" foreclose the possibility of fixing it? If anything it's the exact opposite, if they had ruled on it and created "new law" then Congress wouldn't have any ability to fix it with new federal law. That doesn't mean whatever law Congress passed might not be subject to judicial review, but that's a different question.

That's not what they said. They said this-

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Roberts wrote. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.213e4aa148d0

"No plausible grant of authority in the Constitution" precludes federal legislation short of Constitutional amendment.

Minority rule is now the goal of the the GOP. They've abandoned democracy.

 

[IronWing]

That's not what they said. They said this-



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.213e4aa148d0

"No plausible grant of authority in the Constitution" precludes federal legislation short of Constitutional amendment.

Minority rule is now the goal of the the GOP. They've abandoned democracy.

I interpret that as saying that the Court lacks Constitutional authority. The subsequent "and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions." leaves the door open for Congress to pass legislation that would limit and direct court decisions. The Court is saying, "Congress, give us something to work with here."

 

[glenn1]

That's not what they said. They said this-



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.213e4aa148d0

"No plausible grant of authority in the Constitution" precludes federal legislation short of Constitutional amendment.

Minority rule is now the goal of the the GOP. They've abandoned democracy.

I interpret that as saying that the Court lacks Constitutional authority. The subsequent "and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions." leaves the door open for Congress to pass legislation that would limit and direct court decisions. The Court is saying, "Congress, give us something to work with here."

Exactly what @IronWing said. The "no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution" refers to the earlier part of the sentence "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties,".

Federal judges can't do it because they don't have the authority. The opinion didn't say "no one including Congress" has authority. Congress clearly does because numerous amendments expressly give them the power via the clause "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

 

[Jhhnn]

I interpret that as saying that the Court lacks Constitutional authority. The subsequent "and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions." leaves the door open for Congress to pass legislation that would limit and direct court decisions. The Court is saying, "Congress, give us something to work with here."

The Court fully understands that such will not be forthcoming if the GOP has any say in the matter. They abdicated their responsibility to protect the principles of democracy-

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-dissent-supreme-court-gerrymandering-852999/

 

[glenn1]

The Court fully understands that such will not be forthcoming if the GOP has any say in the matter. They abdicated their responsibility to protect the principles of democracy-

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-dissent-supreme-court-gerrymandering-852999/

What about "The members of the Supreme Court are not legislators" do you not understand? Did you sleep through civics class for a few decades or something? Every single time SCOTUS creates legislation from the bench like Roe v. Wade or Kelo v. New London, democracy dies a little bit. Why don't you just skip to your logical end state of saying "let's abolish Congress altogether and just let SCOTUS write the laws" since that seems to be what you want?

 

[Sunburn74]

Which again is why I said it should be fixed via new federal law. I know it's frustrating when SCOTUS seems like they're dodging the question when the Constitution or federal law doesn't speak to a subject, but the alternative is worse. For example, the constitution doesn't really give guidance for what the 5th amendment phrase "public use" means in the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Instead of punting on the issue (properly) so that federal law could be enhanced to define it, instead the SCOTUS decided for all of us to become super-legislators and write the law themselves for what "public use" meant with their atrocious Kelo v. City of New London decision. We're all worse off because of it since the ruling essentially forecloses the possibility of fixing it with federal law. If the case of gerrymandering, they could have likewise decided to become wanna-be legislators and decided for us all what the law should be - I'm guessing you would have been a lot more unhappy if the "law" they created from whole cloth contained a lot of provisions you dislike.

That's what you get when select ivory tower guys who have highly concrete interpretations of an increasingly out of touch document .

 

[Sunburn74]

What about "The members of the Supreme Court are not legislators" do you not understand? Did you sleep through civics class for a few decades or something? Every single time SCOTUS creates legislation from the bench like Roe v. Wade or Kelo v. New London, democracy dies a little bit. Why don't you just skip to your logical end state of saying "let's abolish Congress altogether and just let SCOTUS write the laws" since that seems to be what you want?

The SCOTUS doesn't write laws and have not done so in recent years . They highlight and give opportunities for Congress to write laws in areas that are lacking or are unclear and have yet to be addressed by Congress and provide a framework on which to base those laws. Our democracy is mostly failing not because of the action of courts but rather the actions of an incompetent and progressively corrupt Congress. Any moron knows that. We don't lack healthcare, are progressively uneducated and living shorter lives and have rampant gerrymandering because of our court system. The fundamental problem is probably more the aging of our constitution and the persistent reliance on an out of touch document to guide modern policy.

 

[brandonbull]

good. If we can get rid of this gerrymandering we can get a less extreme republican party.

You do know that the Gerrymandering cases involved both the Dems and GOP? The majority said it was up to the states to fix state level politics and not the Fed.

 

[brandonbull]

That's not what they said. They said this-



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.213e4aa148d0

"No plausible grant of authority in the Constitution" precludes federal legislation short of Constitutional amendment.

Minority rule is now the goal of the the GOP. They've abandoned democracy.

Because the US isn't a democracy. Never has been.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because the US isn't a democracy. Never has been.

being a republic doesnt mean gop gets a majority of power with minority of votes.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the US isn't a democracy. Never has been.

The US has been a democracy for its entire existence. Sometimes people try the 'US is a republic, not a democracy' angle but they're just exposing their own ignorance.

 

[dank69]

being a republic doesnt mean gop gets a majority of power with minority of votes.

That and, you know, a democratic republic is a kind of democracy.

 

[ivwshane]

Because the US isn't a democracy. Never has been.

^
Something stupid people say when they try and act smart.

 

[hal2kilo]

What about "The members of the Supreme Court are not legislators" do you not understand? Did you sleep through civics class for a few decades or something? Every single time SCOTUS creates legislation from the bench like Roe v. Wade or Kelo v. New London, democracy dies a little bit. Why don't you just skip to your logical end state of saying "let's abolish Congress altogether and just let SCOTUS write the laws" since that seems to be what you want?

Tell that to Gore.

 

[Jhhnn]

What about "The members of the Supreme Court are not legislators" do you not understand? Did you sleep through civics class for a few decades or something? Every single time SCOTUS creates legislation from the bench like Roe v. Wade or Kelo v. New London, democracy dies a little bit. Why don't you just skip to your logical end state of saying "let's abolish Congress altogether and just let SCOTUS write the laws" since that seems to be what you want?

So dishonest. I linked Kagan's dissent. The feigned helplessness of the court majority is shameful. They know partisan gerrymandering erodes the foundation of democracy, the people's belief in it. How do people believe in our govt when a strong majority vote one way & representation ends up the other way? They don't. The GOP doesn't care about any of that, just so long as they can keep their cronies & campaign contributors riding the gravy train of trickle down economics.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Because the US isn't a democracy. Never has been.

The United States is a Federal Republic made up of 50+ individual Democracies.

do you think its good that ohio gop got 52% of the votes but 74% of the congress seats?

I bet he thinks that the GOP should have gotten 100% of the seats.

 

[JSt0rm]

Tell that to Gore.

the supreme court is whatever they want it to be whenever they want it. "Winning" is all that matters. The greatest threat to the planet is the white male gop.

 

[glenn1]

Tell that to Gore.

I specifically called out that case (several times) as an example of what the court should not do and why.

 

[JSt0rm]

I specifically called out that case (several times) as an example of what the court should not do and why.

oh well i guess we should suppress the majority then.

 

[glenn1]

oh well i guess we should suppress the majority then.

I’m a little confused. Do you want more decisions like Bush v. Gore? This gerrymandering decision would be one of that type if they had made law by providing rules for stopping gerrymanders.

 

[JSt0rm]

I’m a little confused. Do you want more decisions like Bush v. Gore? This gerrymandering decision would be one of that type if they had made law by providing rules for stopping gerrymanders.

is it unconstitutional to let politicians pick their voters?

 

[fskimospy]

I’m a little confused. Do you want more decisions like Bush v. Gore? This gerrymandering decision would be one of that type if they had made law by providing rules for stopping gerrymanders.

How would it be making law?

 

[Sunburn74]

I’m a little confused. Do you want more decisions like Bush v. Gore? This gerrymandering decision would be one of that type if they had made law by providing rules for stopping gerrymanders.

Dont provide rules. Just block it and don't give a reason. They do it all the time and just leave the ruling of the lower court intact.

 

[Jhhnn]

is it unconstitutional to let politicians pick their voters?

Not anymore!