Meanwhile in "No one can predict the future any more" SCOTUS rejects VA House appeal

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

In a victory for Democrats in Virginia, the Supreme Court held Monday that the Republican-led Virginia House of Delegates did not have the legal right to challenge a lower court opinion that struck several district maps they had drawn as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

This means court-ordered maps that favored Democrats will continue to be used.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a 5-4 court, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.

Yeah, you might have done a double take there. Ginsburg, Thomas, Sotomator, Kagan, and Gorsuch.

That means Breyer, Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh were the other side.

The decision does not judge as to whether the gerrymandering was unconstitutional. It only states that the Republican led Virginia House of Delegates (single house of the Virginia Legislature) did not have legal standing to challenge the the previous ruling, and they might not have that ability. It is unclear (at least to me) if they need the Governor, who is a Democrat, as well as the Senate (which is at least certain) involved in the appeal.

And can we remove this "maps that favored Democrats", because it doesn't "favor" the Democrats. It seeks to make the districting legal and fair. What the maps do is remove the maps that "favored" the Republicans.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And can we remove this "maps that favored Democrats", because it doesn't "favor" the Democrats. It seeks to make the districting legal and fair. What the maps do is remove the maps that "favored" the Republicans.

When we caught my dad cheating, at cards, or at Monopoly, or at Lawn Darts, he always maintained he only cheated when he would have lost anyway.

So if the Republican maps are gerrymandered, if they HAVE to cheat to retain power, then the only conclusion is that the people would have voted for Democrats. So, if reality has a liberal bias, then a legal/fair/the will of the people map IS favoring Democrats.

I'd rather frame it as 'favoring voters' but it appears to be the same result.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't like or agree with Gorsuch, but he has proven to be a principled justice who will decide against his party when warranted. Would be a good addition to any other supreme court.

 

[southernhybrid]

So, is the implication that Roberts might have been correct when he said there were no Obama judges or Trump judges?

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh no, I'm not saying EVERY judge is like that. Robert was either stretching the truth or expressing an ideal. Justices do tend to be broader minded and use greater long term thinking than most partisans, but that doesn't mean that they aren't partisan.

Gorsuch is a partisan, but he's a broad minded and responsible one. If the court were entirely made up by people like him, I'd be much happier. Roberts at times is like that, but I can't tell if its due to broadmindedness or simply a deeper strategy.

Besides, court watchers have noted that these 'standing' rulings produce strange majorities. This was framed as a 'standing' decision, not a 'gerrymandering' one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh no, I'm not saying EVERY judge is like that. Robert was either stretching the truth or expressing an ideal. Justices do tend to be broader minded and use greater long term thinking than most partisans, but that doesn't mean that they aren't partisan.

Gorsuch is a partisan, but he's a broad minded and responsible one. If the court were entirely made up by people like him, I'd be much happier. Roberts at times is like that, but I can't tell if its due to broadmindedness or simply a deeper strategy.

Besides, court watchers have noted that these 'standing' rulings produce strange majorities. This was framed as a 'standing' decision, not a 'gerrymandering' one.

Jebus! Imagine if a jury could punt.

 

[Sarpedon]

There's also another, minor interesting precedent being set here: how far an administration needs to defend a law it doesn't want. The republican state legislature passed its gerrymandered map, the democrats challenged it, and the democratic attorney general was obligated by law to defend it. He did so, but having lost the court case, he declined to appeal it. The republican legislature disagreed, but the SC denied their standing to appeal. So the SC also seems to have indirectly approved that an administration doesn't have to appeal court decisions if it doesn't want to.

We had a debate some time ago on whether it was right for an administration to not defend laws that it doesn't agree with.

And juries CAN punt.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

And can we remove this "maps that favored Democrats", because it doesn't "favor" the Democrats. It seeks to make the districting legal and fair. What the maps do is remove the maps that "favored" the Republicans.

Every time I read that changing a map to accurately reflect the population "favors the Democrats", I want to scream. It favors the voters.