SCOTUS Decides Gerrymandering Is Strictly Political, Not a Matter for Courts

Auteur

Redacted
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
553
Reaction score
42
Location
Denver
"Gerrymandering is, as so many Justices have emphasized before, anti-democratic in the most profound sense."
~ Justice Elena Kagan
 

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,741
Reaction score
15,164
Location
Massachusetts
This is what makes me tear my hair out about the last election, where I had to listen to Bernie-bros endlessly whining about how they couldn't possibly vote for Hillary Because Reasons.

This, this bullshit from the Supreme Court, is what we have to look forward to for a generation, especially if Trump wins in 2020 and installs RBG's replacement. THIS is what losing in 2016 has wrought. Every time some fool whines about how they couldn't possibly vote for the "lesser of evils", I want to grab them by the neck, shove their face ears-deep into this muck, and hold them there until they turn blue in the face.
 

JJ Litke

People are not wearing enough hats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
4,531
Location
Austin
Website
www.jjlitke.com
Oh cool, so if we were to flip the leg here in Texas and redraw all districts to favor Democrats, the Republicans would be totally accepting of that and not complain. That’s how that would work, right?
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,521
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
I'm really struggling with all the, "We just need to get out there and vote in people who will change policy on the local level" I'm seeing from everyone, from Justice Roberts to people on Twitter trying to rah-rah the faithful, when districting is rigged. I get that those gerrymanders at issue are for federal office, but does the court think this isn't happening on the local level, too? Right down to school boards? Yes, yes, governors, sheriffs, and judges, I guess. Somehow I don't think that's gonna do it.

I'm so deeply, deeply angry at the Democratic party for losing complete and total sight of the importance of their support for local elections. The GOP understood that they could grab power from the local level up, and, look. It gave them a bloodless coup faster than we could blink an eye.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Elections have consequences. Today is the proof of it.

Imagine if you can a Supreme Court where instead of Neil Gorsuch appointed by Donald Trump you have Merrick Garland appointed by Barack Obama. Just hold that thought, okay? It'll be important later.

Justice William J. Brennan once observed of the nation's highest court: "If you have five votes here, you can do anything."

True.

Today's decision where the United States Supreme Court declared the federal courts have NO place in determining gerrymandering cases is a hard backhand into the faces of every American citizen. It's a big middle finger to the idea that elections should be free, fair and impartial. Just as the Roberts Court striking down Section 5 of the 1965 Civil Rights Act was a green light to Republican-led legislatures to impose even more draconian voting restrictions, they will move at light speed to continue carving up the electoral map to elect and protect Republicans and defeat and defenestrate Democrats.

And that's exactly what is going to happen. But it's going to happen to certain groups more than other groups.

This is what happens when Mitch McConnell and his cabal block a Democratic president from appointing a moderate jurist and hold the seat open until there's a Republican president in place to fill the vacancy. Even if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, there would still be McConnell in place to pervert "Advise and Consent" into "Obstruct and Deny."

Facts doesn't matter. Truth has fallen. Your vote doesn't count (if you're one of the lucky ones who are permitted to vote at all). It's not going to matter, so why bother? The game is rigged. The cards are marked. You can't win. How can you? You're not even playing the same game as they are.

The Supreme Court can be a force for fairness and justice. Or it can be a wrecking ball to democracy.

I fear for this country. I fear what happens what will happen when we no longer have choices to make. We only have orders to follow. Maybe Robert Evans wasn't being a bit hyperbolic with his It Could Happen Here podcast in his prediction hows we are inevitably drifting closer to a Second American Civil War. Maybe he was being prescient and we're going downhill on roller skates into that terrifying conflagration.

Am I overstating the impact of one teeny-weeny Supreme Court decision by four White conservatives and one wannabee? No. No, I don't think I am. I see the future and I see the increasing fragmentation and looming disintegration of what we used to call the "United" States of America.

But by all means, let's focus instead on being nicey-nice and presenting ourselves as polite little libs even as the ones we consider to be the Bad Guys keep racking up big "W's" and those of us whom consider ourselves to be the Good Guys keep accumulating all these bad "L's." We can be affable and amenable even as they lock the shackles around our feet as we line up to march lockstep into those special showers.

Conciliatory silence is not going to change this. Neither will good manners.
 
Last edited:

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Five-thirty-eight has an interesting tool that compares the expected results of Congressional races based on 7 different methods of redistricting. In all but one method the GOP is favored to win a majority of seats. One method results in 242 highly competitive races - but I find it hard to believe either party would agree to go that far.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,122
Reaction score
10,882
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
What puzzles me is the distinction between gerrymandering along racial lines, which the court recently ruled was unconstitutional, vs gerrymandering along political lines, which they just ruled they have no say in.

How does one distinguish between the two, given that race is a huge predictor of voting patterns nowadays?
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,707
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
What a load of [redacted] from the most [redacted] administration in American history.
Clever.

With that, I think you're done in this room.

Anyone else who'd like to choose to die on this hill now, and just save me the extra trip into the admin screen?
 
Last edited:

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,521
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
What puzzles me is the distinction between gerrymandering along racial lines, which the court recently ruled was unconstitutional, vs gerrymandering along political lines, which they just ruled they have no say in.

How does one distinguish between the two, given that race is a huge predictor of voting patterns nowadays?

How do they distinguish between "political" around race, and "political" around hanging chads? They flat out decided the 2000 election, and if that wasn't political, I don't know what was.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
What puzzles me is the distinction between gerrymandering along racial lines, which the court recently ruled was unconstitutional, vs gerrymandering along political lines, which they just ruled they have no say in.

How does one distinguish between the two, given that race is a huge predictor of voting patterns nowadays?
I don't know. But one's politics is a choice and can be changed - not so with one's race.