Kind of a wild day for SCOTUS

[fskimospy]

5-4 decision that federal courts can't strike down gerrymandering.

Assuming SCOTUS allows the citizenship question the GOP will have succeeded in fundamentally tilting electoral dynamics in their favor for the foreseeable future. The GOP's bargain with Trump starting it's big payout.

Yup. SCOTUS just ruled that once you gain political power it is perfectly constitutional to rig the system so that you retain political power. This will go down in history like Bush v. Gore as SCOTUS demolishing whatever reputation they had left for being an impartial body.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well... son of a bitch.

Things are about to go full on ape shit in the gerrymandering arena.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Don’t like it but I understand the reasoning.
Now it’s game on Democrat’s it’s perfectly acceptable to gerrymander the shit out of stuff. Time to target local elections.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yup. SCOTUS just ruled that once you gain political power it is perfectly constitutional to rig the system so that you retain political power. This will go down in history like Bush v. Gore as SCOTUS demolishing whatever reputation they had left for being an impartial body.

Just saw this. This is a principle over reality type descision. So now the Dems have no choice but to use the same techniques as the Republicans. Good job SCOTUS. States rights uber alis.

 

[K1052]

Don’t like it but I understand the reasoning.
Now it’s game on Democrat’s it’s perfectly acceptable to gerrymander the shit out of stuff. Time to target local elections.

They already do to varying extents. Some D states didn't quite have the intense devotion to this that many R led states do but now their legislatures will move to preserve their advantage in perpetuity...just as a democracy should work lol.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Looks like the census citizenship question is blocked.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1144253860560691207

 

[glenn1]

Welp, as many predicted, SCOTUS punted on jerrymandering back to state courts. While this should help some rulings stand in NC, Republicans elsewhere are free to keep on keepin on as long as they control the state AG’s office.

Unfortunately there's not a lot in the constitution or existing federal law to go on. The "rules" around redistricting are very rudimentary and don't provide a lot of guidance. AFAIK, there's basically only 2 things in play:

1. Equal population sizes per Apportionment Clause of Article I, Section 2
2. No discrimination on basis of race per Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

That's it. Everything else we generally consider as the "standards" for redistricting (such as compactness, contiguity, etc) is either a state law or just generally accepted (but not enforceable) norms, not federal or constitutional requirement.

It kinda sucks but if you're going on the basis of what the Constitution actually says instead of what we all think it should say, SCOTUS punting on the issue as being "not a federal court purview" is understandable. It's certainly fixable with the passage of laws or constitutional amendments, but in the general absence of those at a federal level the ruling makes sense.

 

[K1052]

Looks like the census citizenship question is blocked.

Adding the question doesn't seem to be their issue, rather that the government didn't provide sufficient bullshit to justify adding it that the court could review.

Yay but yeesh.

 

[fskimospy]

They already do to varying extents. Some D states didn't quite have the intense devotion to this that many R led states do but now their legislatures will move to preserve their advantage in perpetuity...just as a democracy should work lol.

2020 is going to be bananas because every single legislature where one party controls the government will be effectively forced to gerrymander the shit out of their states because if they don't do it the other party will when in power and will lock them out forever.

One of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history, absolutely cancerous to democracy and the idea that everyone's votes are equal.

 

[K1052]

2020 is going to be bananas because every single legislature where one party controls the government will be effectively forced to gerrymander the shit out of their states because if they don't do it the other party will when in power and will lock them out forever.

One of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history, absolutely cancerous to democracy and the idea that everyone's votes are equal.

Also those states will increasingly move to strip their state officers of power should the opposition actually win said offices, as Wisconsin did.

Anybody who thinks that our system of government isn't on the verge of a total breakdown should have no illusions about the future here.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

They already do to varying extents. Some D states didn't quite have the intense devotion to this that many R led states do but now their legislatures will move to preserve their advantage in perpetuity...just as a democracy should work lol.

I mean it’s time to get some google engineers and MIT guys to start making big data machines that predict future population growth. No need to even hide it anymore, simply send emails, calls texts saying we want to maximize our districts and minimize every other. Go waaaaaaaay over the top with everything. Either it stands which is good enough or the court says you’ve stepped out of bounds and it changes which is even better.

 

[Brainonska511]

Don’t like it but I understand the reasoning.
Now it’s game on Democrat’s it’s perfectly acceptable to gerrymander the shit out of stuff. Time to target local elections.

Are we really a democracy when the 'elected' can simply choose the electorate to stay in power?

 

[K1052]

Uh Roberts seems to have a pretty low opinion of the explanation the government made for adding the question:

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Are we really a democracy when the 'elected' can simply choose the electorate to stay in power?

I’d like to say no but it appears that is no longer the game.
Playing by the old rules hasn’t worked that well since 2010(ish). Why keep playing by the old rules when someone else isn’t.
Adapt or be irrelevant.
I’d prefer to adapt.

 

[herm0016]

I always enjoy reading these decisions, lots of interesting considerations.


stop linking to twitter. it's lazy and its blocked at a lot of workplaces.

 

[Sunburn74]

Unfortunately there's not a lot in the constitution or existing federal law to go on. The "rules" around redistricting are very rudimentary and don't provide a lot of guidance. AFAIK, there's basically only 2 things in play:

1. Equal population sizes per Apportionment Clause of Article I, Section 2
2. No discrimination on basis of race per Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

That's it. Everything else we generally consider as the "standards" for redistricting (such as compactness, contiguity, etc) is either a state law or just generally accepted (but not enforceable) norms, not federal or constitutional requirement.

It kinda sucks but if you're going on the basis of what the Constitution actually says instead of what we all think it should say, SCOTUS punting on the issue as being "not a federal court purview" is understandable. It's certainly fixable with the passage of laws or constitutional amendments, but in the general absence of those at a federal level the ruling makes sense.

I'm disappointed in the ruling but it does make sense in that the courts are basically saying "yes it's a problem but what do you want us to do? Congress can fix this". As before when the GOP had all 3 branches of government they could have tried to get rid of gerrymandering and when the Dems had them they could have done the same. Ultimately this is a political problem not a judicial problem though if the SCOTUS were to block gerrymandering without any specific instructions it would force the hand of politicians to fix it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm disappointed in the ruling but it does make sense in that the courts are basically saying "yes it's a problem but what do you want us to do? Congress can fix this". As before when the GOP had all 3 branches of government they could have tried to get rid of gerrymandering and when the Dems had them they could have done the same. Ultimately this is a political problem not a judicisl problem though the if the SCOTUS were to block gerrymandering without any specific instructions it would force the hand of politicians to fix it.

The federal government most certainly could not get rid of gerrymandering as it is up to each state to draw their lines.

The argument put forth by the majority here is that it's not the federal government's place to ensure the fundamental cornerstone of democracy, that being that every voter has an equal say in the direction of government. If making sure the opposing political parties can never achieve power no matter how many votes they get isn't a violation of the Constitution then the Constitution has no meaning.

 

[glenn1]

I always enjoy reading these decisions, lots of interesting considerations.


stop linking to twitter. it's lazy and its blocked at a lot of workplaces.

Given the reasons for the decision (lack of specific guidance in the constitution or federal law, as I pointed out in a previous post) this “bad” decision is fixable if we want it to be. Like the Lilly Ledbetter “equal pay” decision, if you dislike SCOTUS rulings based on the existing law (or lack of one) then pass a new or updated law. Surely there could be some bipartisan consensus generated for new laws on a topic which impacts both parties equally.

 

[fskimospy]

Given the reasons for the decision (lack of specific guidance in the constitution or federal law, as I pointed out in a previous post) this “bad” decision is fixable if we want it to be. Like the Lilly Ledbetter “equal pay” decision, if you dislike SCOTUS rulings based on the existing law (or lack of one) then pass a new or updated law. Surely there could be some bipartisan consensus generated for new laws on a topic which impacts both parties equally.

I would be interested to hear what sort of anti-gerrymandering federal law you think this Supreme Court would not strike down as unconstitutional. Also, it doesn't impact both parties equally. Republicans gain significant additional political power from gerrymandering in the current environment and they know this.

Hell, most of the majority here tried to strike down laws passed by the citizens of the states themselves to limit gerrymandering!

 

[Sunburn74]

The federal government most certainly could not get rid of gerrymandering as it is up to each state to draw their lines.

The argument put forth by the majority here is that it's not the federal government's place to ensure the fundamental cornerstone of democracy, that being that every voter has an equal say in the direction of government. If making sure the opposing political parties can never achieve power no matter how many votes they get isn't a violation of the Constitution then the Constitution has no meaning.

Isn't redistricting and appointment of seats based on federal laws about population size?

 

[UNCjigga]

And now...the census question gets punted down to a lower court? So...citizenship question is blocked...for now.

 

[MovingTarget]

Between Citizens' United, Shelby County v. Holder, and this gerrymandering ruling, I think that we can safely put aside any notion that the US is a democracy. We had a good run.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't redistricting and appointment of seats based on federal laws about population size? That's a federal law. They can easily add additional qualifiers.

It's based on the constitution, not a federal law. In order to add qualifiers we would need to amend the constitution. The only qualifiers the federal government has ever successfully added that I'm aware of were based on race and that's because of the 14th amendment. Any attempt to add qualifiers federally here would be struck down by SCOTUS I'm almost certain.

 

[herm0016]

The federal government most certainly could not get rid of gerrymandering as it is up to each state to draw their lines.

The argument put forth by the majority here is that it's not the federal government's place to ensure the fundamental cornerstone of democracy, that being that every voter has an equal say in the direction of government. If making sure the opposing political parties can never achieve power no matter how many votes they get isn't a violation of the Constitution then the Constitution has no meaning.

Ha.

its more along the lines of: the constitution does not enumerate the power to draw districts to the federal government, so you guys need to figure this shit out at the state level.

 

[glenn1]

I would be interested to hear what sort of anti-gerrymandering federal law you think this Supreme Court would not strike down as unconstitutional. Also, it doesn't impact both parties equally. Republicans gain significant additional political power from gerrymandering in the current environment and they know this.

Hell, most of the majority here tried to strike down laws passed by the citizens of the states themselves to limit gerrymandering!

Already cited one; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 15th amendment and other constitutional authorities already provide the power to address this, refer to "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." I suppose you could argue that Congress couldn't take the ultimate power to perform redistricting from the states, but they can and have put limits on how it can be done.