SCOTUS Decisions

[aurelius]

Two Whoppers came down today. Both 5-4 decisions.

SCOTUS regarding the citizenship question on the census: Not so fast, Donny!
SCOTUS regarding modern gerrymandering: What can the judiciary to do? Political issues require political solutions.

I'm disappointed in the gerrymandering decision. It is likely a "very good" judicial decision. Robert's writes a lot of "very good" judicial decisions. But SCOTUS had an opportunity to end the polarization of politics in the US and failed to do it. It's not like SCOTUS hasn't overreached before on lesser issues...

I put "very good" in quotes. I have not read the majority decision.

[Allentown]

I'm wondering what that means for me. Voters passed a bill requiring districts to be re-drawn by an independent panel, then the state legislature was just like "hahaha, yeah right, you thought you got a say in government? Yeah, no, idiots!"

[aurelius]

I'm wondering what that means for me. Voters passed a bill requiring districts to be re-drawn by an independent panel, then the state legislature was just like "hahaha, yeah right, you thought you got a say in government? Yeah, no, idiots!"

What State was that?

[Allentown]

Is the Location not displayed for everyone? MI.
Anyways, I spent 3 seconds looking for an answer to my question, and apparently the voter-passed bill will remain in effect, and the commission will be redrawing districts. Eventually.

[quark]

The idea that a minority of the population of a state gets to elect a majority or an overwhelming majority of the legislators for that state is abhorrent to the ideas of democracy and one person one vote.

How is there supposed to be a political solution? The exact problem is that a majority of the voters are unable to exert control.

[Allentown]

The idea that a minority of the population of a state gets to elect a majority or an overwhelming majority of the legislators for that state is abhorrent to the ideas of democracy and one person one vote.

How is there supposed to be a political solution? The exact problem is that a majority of the voters are unable to exert control.

You have thusly proven yourself to be more intelligent than the majority of the SCOTUS.
Though I kind of see the point that it isn't a judicial issue. It seems that the majority could still pass a bill requiring independent commissions to draw districts, though Retubs have also been doing their best to make sure the majority are unable to get proposals on ballots or if the ballot passes just flat out ignoring or reversing it, so...

[Stenson]

Relevant:

[Allentown]

Person: "My voting rights are being violated!"
SCOTUS: "It does seem like they are. You need to vote your way out of that pickle."
Person: "..."

[CamLeslie]

George Washington:
That these Powers (as the appointment of all Rulers will forever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to the free suffrage of the People) are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, into which the general Government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarcchy, an Oligarchy, an Aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form; so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People. (Bold mine)
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 06-02-0079

James Madison:
To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 11-02-0101


My belief is that we have strayed from virtue as a people and this democracy/republic is doomed.

[aurelius]

Person: "My voting rights are being violated!"
SCOTUS: "It does seem like they are. You need to vote your way out of that pickle."
Person: "..."

This got a smile. That actually appears to be what Roberts is saying.

Chief Justice John Roberts said for the majority that the districting plans “are highly partisan by any measure.” But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.

Reenactment of SCOTUS reading the decision:

[batherfurner]

Are there any cases where the Court has struck down gerrymanders based on partisan concerns?

[BostonRugger]

The Chad Gorsuch vs. The Virgin Kavanaugh


https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opin ... dants/amp/

[KyleSchuant]

I would have thought something in the 14th Amendment could sort out gerrymandering. Surely if from the 14th you can get, "sorry, you can't stop black kids from going to white schools" you can also get, "one citizen, one vote equal in weight to others"?

Though perhaps the current court is more Dredd Scott than Brown vs Board of Education?

[DirtyRed]

But SCOTUS had an opportunity to end the polarization of politics in the US and failed to do it.

How? How are they going to specifically define what is acceptable districting?

George Washington:
That these Powers (as the appointment of all Rulers will forever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to the free suffrage of the People) are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, into which the general Government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarcchy, an Oligarchy, an Aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form; so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People. (Bold mine)
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 06-02-0079

We already live in an oligarchy, that 95% of you smoothbrains are too stupid to acknowledge. So that failed.

James Madison:
To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 11-02-0101

If the "people" are that virtuous, why do they need government to tell them how to act?

[quark]

There are proposed definitions of acceptable/unacceptable districting in the amicus briefs https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/ ... cus-briefs

I would have thought something in the 14th Amendment could sort out gerrymandering. Surely if from the 14th you can get, "sorry, you can't stop black kids from going to white schools" you can also get, "one citizen, one vote equal in weight to others"?

Though perhaps the current court is more Dredd Scott than Brown vs Board of Education?

If they wanted to strike it down, they could have found plenty of support in the 1st and 14th Amendments and in precedent. However, extreme gerrymandering is currently very helpful for Republicans and five justices generally are extreme Republican partisans. Roberts is sometimes a bit more reasonable as he seems to have have some concern for the Court's (and his own) reputation.

[DirtyRed]

However, extreme gerrymandering is currently very helpful for Republicans and five justices generally are extreme Republican partisans.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WE ONLY LOSE CUZ THE REFS ARE BIASED

Sorry, that complaining only works if you're hating on Boston or LeBron. Or Cindy Crysby.

[quark]

You don't follow the Supreme Court and the recent dynamics of appointments very closely, do you?

Did you somehow believe Trump campaigning with he would appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade meant he would appoint neutral arbiters?

[omaniphil]

and five justices generally are extreme Republican partisans. Roberts is sometimes a bit more reasonable as he seems to have have some concern for the Court's (and his own) reputation.

You don't follow the Supreme Court and the recent dynamics of appointments very closely, do you?

Do you?

[omaniphil]

I'm disappointed in the gerrymandering decision. It is likely a "very good" judicial decision. Robert's writes a lot of "very good" judicial decisions. But SCOTUS had an opportunity to end the polarization of politics in the US and failed to do it. It's not like SCOTUS hasn't overreached before on lesser issues...

I put "very good" in quotes. I have not read the majority decision.

I haven't read the decisions either, and I probably won't get a chance to until this weekend. I'm not a big fan of the Court's political question doctrine. It is not very rigorously applied, and seems to be more of a fall back when they don't want to address an issue. I have no problem with the court having such a doctrine in general, just the way it is used currently is a little haphazard.

Roberts writes good decisions on technical cases, but on big cases that are public, tends to shy away from controversy, and will write decisions that try to keep the Court from overturning legislation or otherwise making a big splash. (e.g., NFIB v Sebelius - none of the parties even argued that the individual mandate was a tax - textbook example of Roberts employing a saving construction).

[quark]

and five justices generally are extreme Republican partisans. Roberts is sometimes a bit more reasonable as he seems to have have some concern for the Court's (and his own) reputation.

You don't follow the Supreme Court and the recent dynamics of appointments very closely, do you?

Do you?

I do. Note the use of "generally" in my post, that criminal law cases can make for strange bedfellows and that there are many libertarian types who don't like broad governmental criminal powers. Roberts in the census case was much more surprising.