Supreme Court upholds Arizona redistricting commission

[ksen]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...g-commission-supreme-court-voting-119543.html

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Arizona’s use of an independent commission to redraw congressional districts is constitutional, leaving the state’s maps intact for the 2016 election — a victory for reform groups pushing for removing politically motivated state lawmakers from the redistricting process.

The Supremes have been quite busy!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

5-4 again?!

I thought this would have been an easy 9-0.

Of course money is speech, paper can be religious...

 

[zorq]

Indeed. Why wouldn't "the legislature" as referred to in the US constituition's elections clause refer to the broader legislative process?

The 17th amendment does more than just what Roberts claims it does in his dissent. It establishes a standard for the election and replacement of Senators throughout the entire country that isn't as fraught with corruption as the previous system. It is a useful amendment even when "legislature" refers to laws legislated into existence by public voter initiative.

I'm not a legal scholar but I think Roberts is wrong but for the right reason. Provided a state had adopted public voter ballot initiatives into it's legislative process, that state could indeed offer US senator nominations as voter ballot initiative options which would have counted in the old system for nominating US senators.

Unfortunately, Roberts is being an ass by insisting that the 17th was ammendment was useless for Arizona because no states had ballot initiatives until 1904 and even today only 24 states have the power of public intitative. But the 17th ammendment was first released to the states for ratification the very same year Arizona first became a US state. Anyway. The fact that people hadn't thought of the idea of using ballot initiatives to reduce corruption when selecting US senators as part of the legislative process does not mean that this process for selecting senators is unconstitutional or extra-legislative.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

5-4 again?!

I thought this would have been an easy 9-0.

Of course money is speech, paper can be religious...

It's always 5-4. That's because there are only five Justices who vote their conscience and the other four are just whores for their corporatist or communist masters.

 

[RavenSky]

ACA had a 6-3 majority.

Given this recent progressive run, I still can't understand why they ruled on Citizens United as they did.

 

[dismal]

5-4 again?!

I thought this would have been an easy 9-0.

Of course money is speech, paper can be religious...

Do you even have the slightest clue about the issues in this case?

Yes, it should have been a slam dunk. This case was not about gerrymandering at all but whether a referendum could usurp power granted to a legislature under the Constitution.

From the document formerly acting as our Constitution:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Seems pretty clear, but apparently not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do you even have the slightest clue about the issues in this case?

Yes, it should have been a slam dunk. This case was not about gerrymandering at all but whether a referendum could usurp power granted to a legislature under the Constitution.

From the document formerly acting as our Constitution:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Seems pretty clear, but apparently not.

I don't see the problem. They just expanded the definition of what a legislature was to other bodies given power by the citizens of the state. The ability to do that was given to them by the US Constitution. While you might enjoy shitting on your constitution and setting it on fire when it says something you disagree with, that doesn't stop it from being the law of your land.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Indeed. Why wouldn't "the legislature" as referred to in the US constituition's elections clause refer to the broader legislative process?

The 17th amendment does more than just what Roberts claims it does in his dissent. It establishes a standard for the election and replacement of Senators throughout the entire country that isn't as fraught with corruption as the previous system. It is a useful amendment even when "legislature" refers to laws legislated into existence by public voter initiative.

I'm not a legal scholar but I think Roberts is wrong but for the right reason. Provided a state had adopted public voter ballot initiatives into it's legislative process, that state could indeed offer US senator nominations as voter ballot initiative options which would have counted in the old system for nominating US senators.

Unfortunately, Roberts is being an ass by insisting that the 17th was ammendment was useless for Arizona because no states had ballot initiatives until 1904 and even today only 24 states have the power of public intitative. But the 17th ammendment was first released to the states for ratification the very same year Arizona first became a US state. Anyway. The fact that people hadn't thought of the idea of using ballot initiatives to reduce corruption when selecting US senators as part of the legislative process does not mean that this process for selecting senators is unconstitutional or extra-legislative.

People back then were more worried about the spoils system of government jobs.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

While you might enjoy shitting on your constitution and setting it on fire when it says something you disagree with, that doesn't stop it from being the law of your land.

That is our Constitutional Right of Free Expression and no maple syrup and aspen-pulp canoeists from the Dominion are going to take it away!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

While you might enjoy shitting on your constitution and setting it on fire when it says something you disagree with, that doesn't stop it from being the law of your land.

That is our Constitutional Right of Free Expression and no maple syrup and aspen-pulp canoeists from the Dominion are going to take it away!

Yes we will. After Obama and Hillary finish dismantling your military and selling off all your weapons to Jihadist extremists, we're going to come south with our giant robot army and crush you under our iron fists (both figuratively and literally, since the robots have giant iron fists to crush you with).

 

[dismal]

I don't see the problem. They just expanded the definition of what a legislature was to other bodies given power by the citizens of the state. The ability to do that was given to them by the US Constitution. While you might enjoy shitting on your constitution and setting it on fire when it says something you disagree with, that doesn't stop it from being the law of your land.

If the USSC calls a ham sandwich a legislature would you see a problem with that?

Assume it's in a case where you don't like the politics if it helps.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't see the problem. They just expanded the definition of what a legislature was to other bodies given power by the citizens of the state. The ability to do that was given to them by the US Constitution. While you might enjoy shitting on your constitution and setting it on fire when it says something you disagree with, that doesn't stop it from being the law of your land.

If the USSC calls a ham sandwich a legislature would you see a problem with that?

Assume it's in a case where you don't like the politics if it helps.

If the Supreme Court defines a legislature as a ham sandwich, then that's the legal definition of the term in your country. Take it up with the people who wrote your constitution, not with me.

In this case, I don't have a problem with it. If the people vote to give a body a certain power, then that's a fine definition of a legislature, even if there are other bodies who want that power for themselves. It's a legal question of how to resolve a dispute between the two bodies, but fortunately your country comes complete with a document describing exactly how such disputes get resolved.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That is our Constitutional Right of Free Expression and no maple syrup and aspen-pulp canoeists from the Dominion are going to take it away!

Yes we will. After Obama and Hillary finish dismantling your military and selling off all your weapons to Jihadist extremists, we're going to come south with our giant robot army and crush you under our iron fists (both figuratively and literally, since the robots have giant iron fists to crush you with).

We've fought the likes of you and defeated your evil genius  Troy Hurtubise before and we will do it again. This time Purple Mountain Majesty style.

 

[ksen]

I don't see the problem. They just expanded the definition of what a legislature was to other bodies given power by the citizens of the state. The ability to do that was given to them by the US Constitution. While you might enjoy shitting on your constitution and setting it on fire when it says something you disagree with, that doesn't stop it from being the law of your land.

If the USSC calls a ham sandwich a legislature would you see a problem with that?

Assume it's in a case where you don't like the politics if it helps.

Does this mean you consider all laws passed through ballot initiatives as being de-facto unconstitutional since the laws created through ballot initiatives were not passed by a state legislature?

 

[dismal]

If the USSC calls a ham sandwich a legislature would you see a problem with that?

Assume it's in a case where you don't like the politics if it helps.

Does this mean you consider all laws passed through ballot initiatives as being de-facto unconstitutional since the laws created through ballot initiatives were not passed by a state legislature?

Um, does the Constitution specifically say all state laws must be passed by a legislature?

 

[ksen]

Does this mean you consider all laws passed through ballot initiatives as being de-facto unconstitutional since the laws created through ballot initiatives were not passed by a state legislature?

Um, does the Constitution specifically say all state laws must be passed by a legislature?

Nope, which makes me wonder why you have a problem with this particular ballot initiative passed law.

 

[dismal]

Um, does the Constitution specifically say all state laws must be passed by a legislature?

Nope, which makes me wonder why you have a problem with this particular ballot initiative passed law.

Um, because the Constitution does specifically say this power belongs to a state legislature?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nope, which makes me wonder why you have a problem with this particular ballot initiative passed law.

Um, because the Constitution does specifically say this power belongs to a state legislature?

And it was. So, no worries.

 

[ksen]

Nope, which makes me wonder why you have a problem with this particular ballot initiative passed law.

Um, because the Constitution does specifically say this power belongs to a state legislature?

Arizona Constitution Article 4, Part 1 Sections 1 & 2:

Section 1. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.

(2) Initiative power. The first of these reserved powers is the initiative. Under this power ten per centum of the qualified electors shall have the right to propose any measure, and fifteen per centum shall have the right to propose any amendment to the constitution.

The Arizona Constitution says the People reserved the right to also make any law or any amendment to their constitution.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah. The constitution says just about the same thing using fewer words in the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people