[Politics] The Supreme Court claims that partisan gerrymandering is beyond it's reach

[Nedoras]

With how chaotic and hectic national news is here in the States, major court decision like this often get drowned out and ignored. This is really fucking big though, and it can't be over looked. This story isn't getting enough attention and it really needs to be.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-turned-their-backs-voters-gerrymandering-ruling-advocates-say-n1023301
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-federal-courts-dont-have-a-role-in-deciding-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/2019/06/27/2fe82340-93ab-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.d90191a112e3

The vote was 5-4, with chief justice Roberts stating "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts".

Other statements of his include "The districting plans at issue here are highly partisan, by any measure. The question is whether the courts below appropriately exercised judicial power when they found them unconstitutional as well"

As well as "There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments".

Justice Kagan in her dissent stated "The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the court?s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections".

They punted the issue right back to the individual states and we're back at square one as a result. They know that the states aren't ever going to do anything about it. Why would they? Hell, in some cases, the state courts have pretty much made it so that nothing can be done about it. That was the whole point of it going to the Supreme Court.

 

[Agema]

They punted the issue right back to the individual states and we're back at square one as a result. They know that the states aren't ever going to do anything about it. Why would they? Hell, in some cases, the state courts have pretty much made it so that nothing can be done about it. That was the whole point of it going to the Supreme Court.

If the US Constitution permits gerrymandering, then it permits gerrymandering. After all, it's not perfect.

 

[Nedoras]

They punted the issue right back to the individual states and we're back at square one as a result. They know that the states aren't ever going to do anything about it. Why would they? Hell, in some cases, the state courts have pretty much made it so that nothing can be done about it. That was the whole point of it going to the Supreme Court.

If the US Constitution permits gerrymandering, then it permits gerrymandering. After all, it's not perfect.

Whether it's constitutional or not isn't set in stone and depends on the case. Various accounts of gerrymandering have been ruled unconstitutional by state courts in the past. The cases brought to the Supreme Court in this instance, were flat out admitted to be unfair by Roberts himself. Gerrymandering cases are a headache to look into, as despite instances of the drawing of districts being found to be unconstitutional, politicians have found ways to keep it in place regardless. The politicization of the courts hasn't helped. It's gotten to the point where even unconstitutional instances of gerrymandering, are okay by some state courts. And now the Supreme Court has basically said "well sure, but that's up to them though".

 

[Seanchaidh]

What was that someone said about the impact of making peaceful revolutions impossible with respect to the inevitability of violent revolutions? I'm less interested in the legal reasoning.

It is time to organize a real opposition.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

I disagree with the ruling (and echo Kagan's dissent), but understand the reasoning under the political question doctrine. Alternatives exist that have succeeded in other states and while some forms of Gerrymandering are outlawed, it is often left to the political branches to adhere to those existing restrictions.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Well, if i was an US citizen i know what a presidential candidate would have to include in their program to even count on my vote(not that any of the parties would want that to happen).

 

[Nedoras]

I disagree with the ruling (and echo Kagan's dissent), but understand the reasoning under the political question doctrine. Alternatives exist that have succeeded in other states and while some forms of Gerrymandering are outlawed, it is often left to the political branches to adhere to those existing restrictions.

The problem is, that those alternatives are often not cared for. And in a recent case, a case that was brought up in this very ruling, those alternatives have been ruled against. That alone makes everything Roberts said fucking laughable and made in nothing but bad faith. They know what they're doing, and they don't give a damn about their reasoning behind it.

 

[Worgen]

The easiest way to get them to change this is to be really blatant about it and be democratic to make sure that no republicans can do anything in a democratic state and then mock republicans for even trying to be elected. Just be uberdicks, its the only thing they understand.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Supreme Court is compromised. This is going to be a regular problem if people are fine allowing it to continue.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Well shit, it's almost as if the national Democratic party needed to stop treating the state parties like a findom and her pay piggies, and focused on building a ground game to win state legislatures and gubernatorial elections two election cycles ago in preparation for 2020. Y'know, because 2020 is the next redistricting election and all, and probably the last chance the party gets to course-correct before the crazy-ass next level "death of the Republic" shit starts really going down.