Printable View
They've decided *political* gerrymandering isn't part of their mandate. :confused:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/s...uling-what-now
"Justice Roberts said political science is 'sociological gobbledygook.' Here's why he said it, and why he's mistaken."
"Thursday’s ruling was clarifying: now we know the courts won’t save us from those looking to manipulate our elections for political gain. We’re going to have to do it ourselves."
SCOTUS also ruled that the "Citizenship" question being added to the 2020 Census form was essentially for contrived political reasons, and was therefore unconstitutional. That's also weighing in on "political" decisions, so what's the difference? :confused:
The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh-in on political gerrymandering for decades and has always said no. Do you want judges making more political decisions? Districting is left to the states as it is an openly political process. If you want to campaign to delegate to a state commission using a certain methodology, go for it.
If it is also racist gerrymandering then courts should definitely weigh in
I thought they already did for that? The case here was about partisan rather than racist ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
"Do you want the supreme court to stop political parties from cheating at elections? That's too political, if they do that they might do anything. If you want to stop them cheating, solution is simple: just beat them in the elections they're cheating at."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Simply put, political parties are not a protected class in the election process. If something becomes sufficiently unpopular, it will generally become a cross-partisan election issue and be addressed.
Nothing "simple" about this, Dread.
Political parties aren't protected classes but voting groups certainly can be, which is why SCOTUS ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional. However, they also gutted parts of the Civil Rights Act https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/q...ounty-decision
and voila....Republican-held states made all sorts of new voting restrictions without pre-clearance, redrew voting district lines, and closed polling stations that (surprise!) mostly disenfranchised poor people and people of color who traditionally vote for Democrats. Just an accidental correlation, right? :rolleyes:
Their Census decision means they *can* see discrimination hiding behind bogus political rationale, when they *want* to. But it has to be so blatant and bald-faced they can't be accused of being politically influenced. Meanwhile, the GOP has made it their mission to appoint conservative (R) justices to the courts.....
In the context of the US electoral system, this is plainly untrue. In addition, your argument misses the point; political parties may not be protected classes, but voters are entitled to protection from certain forms of discrimination, and political gerrymandering frequently involves curtailing voters' democratic rights based on eg. their race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Well then make a case about racial gerrymandering and prove intent to curtail representation of people based on their race.
Huh? Racial gerrymandering has already been declared discriminatory (and therefore unconstitutional). What has NOT been decided is what to do with (constitutional) political gerrymandering that can separate racist/discriminatory *intents* from accidental consequences; flaw from feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The GOP has spent the last two decades trying to reduce the number of eligible voters and restrict the electorate....because they can't win otherwise. When less than half vote for Republicans, but they get a majority in state legislatures anyway, there might be something wrong with our electoral process. :donkey: