flyangler

Last Two Supreme Court Decisions - Gerrymander and Census Question.

Rate this topic

39 posts in this topic

 

Case 1: 5-4 decision that the federal courts, including the SC, do not have a role in determining the legality of a partisan gerrymander. Says states can pass laws to manage gerrymandering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN reports:

 

The Supreme Court said Thursday that federal courts must stay out of disputes over when politicians go too far in drawing district lines for partisan gain — a ruling could fundamentally affect the balance of power in state legislatures and Congress.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 decision for the conservative majority.

The court was asked to consider when politicians go too far in drawing lines for partisan gain in a set of cases arising from North Carolina and Maryland.

 

The North Carolina case was brought by Democrats challenging Republican-drawn maps, while the Maryland case was brought by Republicans challenging a Democratic map.

 

TK note: The SC decided to opine on both cases together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case 2: Immigration status question on upcoming 2020 census challenge has been thrown back to lower courts by SC. The decision is 9-0 because the SC cannot be deciding a case that is still active in lower court (due to the discovery of new evidence in lower court case). 

 

While this still must be decided by lower courts, this is a "defeat" for Trump as there is no way this can all be decided before the 2020 census forms go the the printers in July 1st. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 mins ago, patchyfog said:

I think that's a very regrettable decision.

Republicans NEED gerrymandering to hold onto power,

a Republican SC is not going to prevent that from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

Republicans NEED gerrymandering to hold onto power,

a Republican SC is not going to prevent that from happening.

I don't think anybody should like this; it's not as if Dems haven't gerrymandered to their advantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, patchyfog said:

I don't think anybody should like this; it's not as if Dems haven't gerrymandered to their advantage. 

Look to Maryland for an example of that. The Democrats eliminated a reliable Republican district in Western Md, and divided my little neighborhood into 3 or 4 districts, diluting our Republican votes with more urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Maryland was one of the precipitators of the case...gerrymandering is a bipartisan pastime. 

 

Not a fan of that decision. 

Edited by saltydawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, patchyfog said:

I don't think anybody should like this; it's not as if Dems haven't gerrymandered to their advantage. 

don't get me wrong,

I am against it all the time,

right is right

wrong is wrong,

and situational ethics isn't something I can get behind.

 

but at the MOMENT I think the GOP is benefiting the most,

so they aren't going to change it now......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, fish'nmagician said:

 

but at the MOMENT I think the GOP is benefiting the most,

so they aren't going to change it now......

Undoubtedly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 mins ago, The Dude said:

I think the legal decision is sound. How is the Supreme Court to judge when a district is too partisan. However, the effect is not good. 

Agreed. It's certainly a states rights issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, Joe said:

Agreed. It's certainly a states rights issue.

except if a state has been gerrymandered into a position where a minority has an ironclad grip on state government,

and the will of the majority is being oppressed.

there have been a LOT of unethical naked power grabs in state government lately,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

Republicans NEED gerrymandering to hold onto power,

a Republican SC is not going to prevent that from happening.

You DO realize that one of these cases was challenging a Democrat-controlled legislature's gerrymander, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomkaz said:

You DO realize that one of these cases was challenging a Democrat-controlled legislature's gerrymander, right?

That one is OK by him because Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.