SCOTUS in 5 to 4 decision rule "Fuck democracy"

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Supreme Court said Thursday that federal courts must stay out of disputes over when politicians go too far in drawing district lines for partisan gain -- a dramatic and sweeping ruling that could fundamentally affect the balance of power in state legislatures and Congress.

link

"Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles' ... does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," he wrote.

Just switch out the bolded text and you can justify any number of anti-liberty decisions.

What is interesting, at the surface, is that SCOTUS (the majority) are saying they can't redistribute power. The thing is, who is asking them to?

"Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering," he {Roberts} wrote. "Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts."

They aren't condoning it, they are just allowing it.

 

[southernhybrid]

But on the brighter side, they aren't going to allow the citizen question to be on the census. At least not at this time, thanks to Roberts voting with the liberals on the court.

The goddamn congress needs to do something about gerrymandering, something that both parties have been guilty of in the past. As for me, I'm already doing my part as I am a rare white liberal living in a district that is 70 percent conservative, due to the rural areas that are included in our district.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But on the brighter side, they aren't going to allow the citizen question to be on the census. At least not at this time, thanks to Roberts voting with the liberals on the court.

The goddamn congress needs to do something about gerrymandering, something that both parties have been guilty of in the past. As for me, I'm already doing my part as I am a rare white liberal living in a district that is 70 percent conservative, due to the rural areas that are included in our district.

Regarding the other case and the Citizen Question...

351 F. Supp. 3d 502, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with
respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to
Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which THOMAS,
GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined;
and with respect to Part V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR,
and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part
and dissenting in part, in which GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.
BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part,
in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed
an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

EGAD!

 

[PyramidHead]

This is why it's highly alarming that NO Dem candidates, not even the leftiest of them, are talking about packing the Goddamn courts as a top-3 priority for getting this country off the track to oblivion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is why it's highly alarming that NO Dem candidates, not even the leftiest of them, are talking about packing the Goddamn courts as a top-3 priority for getting this country off the track to oblivion.

Umm... Obama put a lot of butts on a lot of courts up to 2014, though he was robbed one SCOTUS seat. I was going to write an OP about how W and Trump got way too many judges through the system and Obama was blocked, but that wasn't actually true. While Obama was blocked in '15 and '16, he did manage to appoint more than W. The SCOTUS deal was reprehensible and unprecedented.

Also, the idea of saying you want to stack the court with judges you like sounds a bit authoritarian... especially for a President.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then abolish the SC altogether, it's not helping anyone at this point. Term limits, pack the court, or abolish. All are better than doing nothing

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then abolish the SC altogether, it's not helping anyone at this point. Term limits, pack the court, or abolish. All are better than doing nothing

Yes, we'll "just" get rid of the SCOTUS. Can't pass a simple budget, but we can amend the Constitution and remove SCOTUS.

 

[repoman]

Who the fuck is SCOTUS to be restricting lower courts from taking on cases? Whether it be positive or negative rights, left or right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then abolish the SC altogether, it's not helping anyone at this point.

No, you just don't like those who it is helping. Not the same thing.

 

[fromderinside]

FDI cryptogram:

Put order in the court remove politicians from consideration for being members of it. Cincinnatus where are you

Order the following in US constitutional priority: Republic, one man one vote, partisan, state's rights, God.

Let order show you the way.

Dumb ass conservative king loving turkeys.

The next twenty years should be very interesting.

After that it all goes brown.

The End

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then abolish the SC altogether, it's not helping anyone at this point. Term limits, pack the court, or abolish. All are better than doing nothing

Yes, we'll "just" get rid of the SCOTUS. Can't pass a simple budget, but we can amend the Constitution and remove SCOTUS.

Well, you can just ignore it. Seeing as it doesn't have any sort of enforcement division, obeying Supreme Court decisions is entirely at the discretion of the executive branch which owns all the cops.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then abolish the SC altogether, it's not helping anyone at this point. Term limits, pack the court, or abolish. All are better than doing nothing

Yes, we'll "just" get rid of the SCOTUS. Can't pass a simple budget, but we can amend the Constitution and remove SCOTUS.

Well, you can just ignore it. Seeing as it doesn't have any sort of enforcement division, obeying Supreme Court decisions is entirely at the discretion of the executive branch which owns all the cops.

Please don't let Trump know that.

 

[James Madison]

link

Just switch out the bolded text and you can justify any number of anti-liberty decisions.

What is interesting, at the surface, is that SCOTUS (the majority) are saying they can't redistribute power. The thing is, who is asking them to?

"Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering," he {Roberts} wrote. "Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts."

They aren't condoning it, they are just allowing it.

Does the Constitution provide a “standard” the judiciary can rely upon to determine when partisan gerrymandering is too much, unfair, as opposed to the other option of 5 or more justices conjuring up a “standard” based on their own philosophical sense of what is a good “standard.” The majority opinion says no. From the majority decision:

There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments.​

Seems right. You disagree. Fine. Where in the Constitution is there a "standard" governing the judiciary to determine when partisan gerrymandering is too much, it is unfair? You could be so kind to oblige the rest of us with not only the provision you believe to have such a standard in the Constitution, but how and why that provision creates the standard.

 

[James Madison]

This is why it's highly alarming that NO Dem candidates, not even the leftiest of them, are talking about packing the Goddamn courts as a top-3 priority for getting this country off the track to oblivion.

Or maybe they are wise for doing so. The notion of "packing...the courts" because you have a mere belief the decisions by the Court are leading the country "off the track to oblivion" is an unwise suggestion and establishes the dangerous precedent of "packing the courts" on the basis people merely disagree with the rulings.

 

[James Madison]

Then abolish the SC altogether, it's not helping anyone at this point. Term limits, pack the court, or abolish. All are better than doing nothing

it's not helping anyone at this point

Oh, that is doubtful, and you can spare me your partisan retort that the only people or entities helped are those that you undoubtedly have a negative view of based on your left leaning philosophical/political proclivities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

Just switch out the bolded text and you can justify any number of anti-liberty decisions.

What is interesting, at the surface, is that SCOTUS (the majority) are saying they can't redistribute power. The thing is, who is asking them to?

"Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering," he {Roberts} wrote. "Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts."

They aren't condoning it, they are just allowing it.

Does the Constitution provide a “standard” the judiciary can rely upon to determine when partisan gerrymandering is too much, unfair, as opposed to the other option of 5 or more justices conjuring up a “standard” based on their own philosophical sense of what is a good “standard.”

What is "porn"? How many standards and tests has SCOTUS created, developed, and modified?

The majority opinion says no.

The majority says gerrymandering is naughty, but their hands are tied. I suppose those five justices walk outside in the rain with a tatter small raincoat they used when they were a toddler, because it is what they started out with, and adapting makes no sense.

From the majority decision:

There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments.​

This is why we appoint pretty smart people into the position. So that they can make a tough decision every once in a while, of course, sometimes pretty smart people use that intelligence to do logical somersaults to avoid making the right decision.

Clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional. It defeats the whole purpose of having elections, with elections being important to the whole democracy thing. Setting a standard for what is considered gerrymandering and what isn't gerrymandering would be somewhat difficult. But to say they have no federal authority to protect one person one vote... that seems pretty Plessy v Ferguson.

 

[James Madison]

Does the Constitution provide a “standard” the judiciary can rely upon to determine when partisan gerrymandering is too much, unfair, as opposed to the other option of 5 or more justices conjuring up a “standard” based on their own philosophical sense of what is a good “standard.”

The majority opinion says no.

The majority says gerrymandering is naughty, but their hands are tied. I suppose those five justices walk outside in the rain with a tatter small raincoat they used when they were a toddler, because it is what they started out with, and adapting makes no sense.

From the majority decision:

There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments.​

This is why we appoint pretty smart people into the position. So that they can make a tough decision every once in a while, of course, sometimes pretty smart people use that intelligence to do logical somersaults to avoid making the right decision.

Clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional. It defeats the whole purpose of having elections, with elections being important to the whole democracy thing. Setting a standard for what is considered gerrymandering and what isn't gerrymandering would be somewhat difficult. But to say they have no federal authority to protect one person one vote... that seems pretty Plessy v Ferguson.

What is "porn"? How many standards and tests has SCOTUS created, developed, and modified?

Not a very good retort, since Roberts can legitimately say that is a great example of SCOTUS making up rules not rooted in the text of the Constitution.

The majority says gerrymandering is naughty, but their hands are tied. I suppose those five justices walk outside in the rain with a tatter small raincoat they used when they were a toddler, because it is what they started out with, and adapting makes no sense.

Your nonsensical diatribe is not a rebuttal to what the majority opinion said and neither does it provide an answer to my query to you.

This is why we appoint pretty smart people into the position. So that they can make a tough decision every once in a while, of course, sometimes pretty smart people use that intelligence to do logical somersaults to avoid making the right decision.

This ignores the possibility the "pretty smart people" in the "position" have made the correct determination the Constitution does not provide guidance for the Court to rely upon, and as a result, the Court refuses to just make one up. Your retort above does nothing to refute the claims of the majority opinion or answer my question to you.

Clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Then "clearly" you should be capable of refuting the majority opinion. So what are you waiting for? Commence immediately with demonstrating how "clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional." Spare me another post with your ludicrous diatribes and rebut the reasoning and rational of the majority opinion by establishing with such ineluctable logic that the only crystal, clear conclusion is "gerrymandering is unconstitutional."

But to say they have no federal authority to protect one person one vote... that seems pretty Plessy v Ferguson

Well, here is your chance to be a big shot, man! CJ Roberts addressed the case law regarding "one person, one vote" and why it was not controlling and different than partisan gerrymandering before the Court. But of course, you knew that already, right, having read the opinion? You have not read the opinion at the time of your post above have you.

All good. Read it. Then give the rest of us the counterargument to CJ Roberts majority opinion, not your nonsense diatribes, but a rebuttal to the substance of the majority opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The majority says gerrymandering is naughty, but their hands are tied. I suppose those five justices walk outside in the rain with a tatter small raincoat they used when they were a toddler, because it is what they started out with, and adapting makes no sense.

Your nonsensical diatribe is not a rebuttal to what the majority opinion said and neither does it provide an answer to my query to you.

I don't expect you to understand the analogy.

This is why we appoint pretty smart people into the position. So that they can make a tough decision every once in a while, of course, sometimes pretty smart people use that intelligence to do logical somersaults to avoid making the right decision.

This ignores the possibility the "pretty smart people" in the "position" have made the correct determination the Constitution does not provide guidance for the Court to rely upon, and as a result, the Court refuses to just make one up. Your retort above does nothing to refute the claims of the majority opinion or answer my question to you.

The nation has an issue that people are not being represented. That there is no text in the Constitution dealing with Gerrymandering is a cop out. Heck, the authority SCOTUS presumed in Marbury v Madison isn't explicitly in there either.

Clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Then "clearly" you should be capable of refuting the majority opinion.

I'll let the dissenters handle that argument.

So what are you waiting for? Commence immediately with demonstrating how "clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional."

Seriously?! The goal of gerrymandering is to make elections needless and it becomes more of an appointment process because the parties have ridiculous advantage levels in gerrymandered districts.

If the Founding Fathers wanted people appointed to the House, they would have done so. Instead, they provided people (some) with the right to vote. If the outcome is nearly predetermined, it isn't Democracy.

 

[James Madison]

I don't expect you to understand the analogy.

This is why we appoint pretty smart people into the position. So that they can make a tough decision every once in a while, of course, sometimes pretty smart people use that intelligence to do logical somersaults to avoid making the right decision.

This ignores the possibility the "pretty smart people" in the "position" have made the correct determination the Constitution does not provide guidance for the Court to rely upon, and as a result, the Court refuses to just make one up. Your retort above does nothing to refute the claims of the majority opinion or answer my question to you.

The nation has an issue that people are not being represented. That there is no text in the Constitution dealing with Gerrymandering is a cop out. Heck, the authority SCOTUS presumed in Marbury v Madison isn't explicitly in there either.

Clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Then "clearly" you should be capable of refuting the majority opinion.

I'll let the dissenters handle that argument.

So what are you waiting for? Commence immediately with demonstrating how "clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional."

Seriously?! The goal of gerrymandering is to make elections needless and it becomes more of an appointment process because the parties have ridiculous advantage levels in gerrymandered districts.

If the Founding Fathers wanted people appointed to the House, they would have done so. Instead, they provided people (some) with the right to vote. If the outcome is nearly predetermined, it isn't Democracy.

So in other words, you have not the slightest notion whether the majority opinion by Roberts is wrong. Compounding your ignorance is bliss approach, you have no idea how or why Roberts is or could be wrong. Nice.

So, you utilize a thread to complain about an opinion you know very little to nothing about, and ostensibly lack any rational, substantive reason for your objections to the opinion. You oppose the opinion because the opinion does not align with your political predisposition.

And, by the way, had you read the opinion, apparently it is too much to expect you to actually READ the material you seek to denounce undoubtedly resulting from your aversion to reading, the majority opinion discusses the points you make and provides a strong argument on each point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't expect you to understand the analogy.

The nation has an issue that people are not being represented. That there is no text in the Constitution dealing with Gerrymandering is a cop out. Heck, the authority SCOTUS presumed in Marbury v Madison isn't explicitly in there either.

Clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Then "clearly" you should be capable of refuting the majority opinion.

I'll let the dissenters handle that argument.

So what are you waiting for? Commence immediately with demonstrating how "clearly gerrymandering is unconstitutional."

Seriously?! The goal of gerrymandering is to make elections needless and it becomes more of an appointment process because the parties have ridiculous advantage levels in gerrymandered districts.

If the Founding Fathers wanted people appointed to the House, they would have done so. Instead, they provided people (some) with the right to vote. If the outcome is nearly predetermined, it isn't Democracy.

So in other words, you have not the slightest notion whether the majority opinion by Roberts is wrong. Compounding your ignorance is bliss approach, you have no idea how or why Roberts is or could be wrong. Nice.

So, you utilize a thread to complain about an opinion you know very little to nothing about, and ostensibly lack any rational, substantive reason for your objections to the opinion. You oppose the opinion because the opinion does not align with your political predisposition.

And, by the way, had you read the opinion, apparently it is too much to expect you to actually READ the material you seek to denounce undoubtedly resulting from your aversion to reading, the majority opinion discusses the points you make and provides a strong argument on each point.

So strong that only 5 signed on.