Supremes favor Gerrymandering

[_EAllusion]

The argument, which consistently won in lower courts until it hit a very conservative one stacked with Republican partisans, was that discriminating against voters on the basis of political ideology violates equal protection and/or due process. The idea that the government may not discriminate on the basis of a person's political views is even more obviously embedded in the Constitution than protections against racial discrimination. That's not where the decision turns, though. Roberts is asserting that no standard of fairness is possible to adjudicate because fairness standards are manifold and picking between them is political decision. He then cites post-election proportionality as as what the plantiffs are calling for and dismisses it. This is not what was argued and misunderstands the role of outcome based statistical tests of gerrymanders. His reasoning is built on falsely representing the opposing view point into a weaker position, then rejecting it. This should be unbecoming of the chief justice.

Roberts is a highly political judge. In the most obvious case, he reversed his own opinion on the Affordable Care act because he didn't like the political outcome. He negotiated a political settlement with Kagan, then reasoned backwards to a sketchy rationale that would get it.

[_EAllusion]

The courts aren't the correct place to address the problems. Congress is.

The beneficiaries of gerrymandering are the appropriate people to decide whether gerrymandering is good. I wonder if the North Carolina state legislature controlled by a party that can lose in a landslide and still retain their majorities is going to decide whether that is something they want to continue. If only there was some way to know.

This is not a recipe for "protecting the institutions of democracy."

Barring some luck, this attitude is a death loop for democracy.

North Carolina, for what it is worth, probably already is not a democracy and grades out as a deeply flawed pseudo-democracy akin to Cuba using the EIP's methodology.

[_moksha]

If the electoral college means the US is not a democracy than I suppose we never were a democracy by your definition.

Could this be subsequently expanded into a conservative argument on the merits of plutocracy?

[_Brackite]

Trump is trying to get around the other big Supreme Court ruling from a couple of weeks ago.

The Census Case Could Provoke a Constitutional Crisi


Barr sees a way for census to legally ask about citizenship

[_subgenius]

Trump is trying to get around the other big Supreme Court ruling from a couple of weeks ago.

The Census Case Could Provoke a Constitutional Crisi


Barr sees a way for census to legally ask about citizenship

not that you guys arent beating the "constitutional crisis" horse to death already, but its begining to seem like you guys don't really know what a constitutional crisis actually is.

[_Kevin Graham]

Trump is trying to get around the other big Supreme Court ruling from a couple of weeks ago.

The Census Case Could Provoke a Constitutional Crisi


Barr sees a way for census to legally ask about citizenship

not that you guys aren't beating the "constitutional crisis" horse to death already, but its begining to seem like you guys don't really know what a constitutional crisis actually is.

Go ahead and explain it for us. And Western Liberalism too while you're at it.