Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering

I don't necessarily disagree. But where I do disagree, is that the people of these states should forfeit their legislative and elective powers to an outside body, that isn't even elected themselves.

 

That still doesn't make any sense. You seem to be excusing gerrymandering because minorities. As if diluting the minority vote is a legitimate reason for gerrymandering.

Your ideological blinders and paranoia rear their heads again.

 

When I said 'stop counting illegal immigrants in the census' I haven't heard a leftist agree with this.

 

Why not? Supporting "diversity" is the dilution of the white vote.

That's funny coming from one of the most die-hard Democratic Party fanboys/shills on the board. If you aren't on their payroll directly you're financially benefitting some other way on their success.

 

Well #1, you still haven't identified a single "legislative or elective power" that people would forfeit.

#2, most such commissions/panels are appointed by elected officials, or defined by laws passed by those elected officials. It is a delegation of power, not a removal of power.

A SCOTUS ruling that found partisan gerrymandering to be unConstitutional would simply force all states to pass such a law, delegating the power of redistricting in some manner.

 

Um, okay. How does that make leftists hypocrites with regard to redistricting?

 

Uh ... the mere existence of minorities is a "dilution" of the white vote. Drawing districts to give whites (or any specific group) outsized political power is anti-democratic.

Did I mention your paranoia and ideological blinders are showing again?

 

The people have the power to elect officials and have them create law. It's a basic legal tenet to assume that all existing laws are what the people want, unless proven otherwise in a higher court. When the courts take that power away, they are using judges to usurp the will of the people.

Again, for the 797987098798th time, I am not saying these panes are necessarily good or bad. I'm saying the methods by which the people of a state choose their districts, should be up to them, not some far away judge.

Also, you don't have the powers of the SCOTUS quite right. The SCOTUS can strike down law, not write new law. Sometimes, via striking down a law, they are, in effect, writing law. But that doesn't mean they get to LITERALLY write law at the state level. They can strike down, or not strike down. They can't choose the solution.

 

It has nothing to do with "what the people want". Courts rule on constitutionality, period.

Agreed, as long as it is constitutional.

However, gerrymandering districts weakens the voice of voters. Once you have done that, the link between "elected officials" and "what voters want" is weakened.

Where did I say they got to write the law? When SCOTUS rules, they tend to do two things: define something as unconstitutional, and provide some test to determine what IS constitutional.

SCOTUS could strike down partisan gerrymandering as unConstitutional. That is clearly within their purview.

If they did that, they would probably provide some guidance as to what redistricting methods ARE constitutional. That's what I meant.

 

That may be the case. But that represents an either/or fallacy too.

It may not be possible to please everyone. But neither should there be a "Republcian Redistricting Map" drawn by a shady 501c4 group run by Karl Rove designed specifically to make sure that even when the votes go to Democrats, the seats go to Republicans, as happened in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and a few other states.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

There is plenty more on the REDMAP effort out there.

 

Typically, one the Court has ruled on such a matter, there is either legislation, or the accepted legals standards are established by legal precident.

 

Can't wait for the outcome, an important decision to be rendered.

 

If you accept that fairness is a goal, then you should endorse new and proven methods for obtaining that fairness. Until now, one of the primary issues against limiting partisan gerrymandering is that there was almost zero way of evaluating and detecting whether such took place. I could very easily make the argument that many of the times that previous district lines were struck down, those lines were actually drawn to minimize the impact of a particular party, but it manifested itself in the minority vote.

 

We can only hope for some decency from the Supreme Court, but I do not hold my breath. I certainly hope I am wrong, but I see the usual 5-4 decision and it will allow jerrymandering.
Why? Because the 5 GOP justices (I assume Gorsuch will follow Scalia's path) have shown they will favor the GOP over fairness - they already have:
1) Corporations are people - for campaign bribes - er, "donations"
2) Money is speech - unlimited bribes - er, "donations"
those 2 rulings ensure our government is bought, and the preservation of jerrymandering will delay the loss of the GOP to demographics.

That jerrymandering is unfair is proven by the fact that millions more votes were cast in total for the Democratic representatives, yet the GOP has the House.

 

And those two rulings have also lead us to where we are today. Citizen's United needs to be overturned.

 

Congressional districts should not be oddly shaped or intended to increase or reduce any political partie's power or influence.

 

As much as I would hope otherwise, the pattern of the Robert's court is clear.

 

I hope the SC rules against partisan gerrymandering, but I'm not holding my breath. This is why it is important for Republicans to appoint SC justices... So they get their way.

 

They won't agree. I for one don't understand how they are counted at all, they aren't citizens. They ought to be deported, no matter how bad it makes someone feel.

 

No, I should not endorse anything. It doesn't matter what I think about it, except in my own state. Unlike Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians do not think they have the right to tell other states how to govern themselves. It's none of my business how they do it, so long as they think it's ok.

 

Actually, there are computer algorithms that are capable of drawing lines based on population change, instead of securing votes for a certain party.

Can you point to the section of the Constitution which allows anybody in the legislative branch to draw the lines?

 

Come on now. There has to be a better way. This kind of stuff is absolute non-sense.



And yes... there are algorithms to better and more fairly draw districts based on population changes. The way it should be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-in-his-spare-time/?utm_term=.7e60bf3d1806

 

The census is meant to count everyone, citizens or not.

Apportionment specifically is meant to count EVERYONE living in a given area, whether they are citizens or not.

I think that's actually part of the slavery compromise.

 

I am aware, I just don't understand it, if the intent of redistricting is a 1 for 1 vote representation. Illegal immigrants are not meant to vote.

 

No, this is not about how to govern. Even in a situation where the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the States are still free to decide how they want to draw district lines. But they will have an additional consideration - namely whether the districts are drawn in such a way as to unfairly disenfranchise a political party.