SCOTUS in 5 to 4 decision rule "Fuck democracy"

[Worldtraveller]

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.

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.

And totally coincidentally that it was the 5 who have been pretty consistently partisan when it really matters, and of the same party that is currently benefiting most from the status quo.

It's a mystery!!

 

[James Madison]

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.

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.

Now that makes a lot of sense. Reduce whether an opinion is right or wrong to a popularity contest. What is troubling is you actually think you made a smart and intelligent remark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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.

Now that makes a lot of sense. Reduce whether an opinion is right or wrong to a popularity contest. What is troubling is you actually think you made a smart and intelligent remark.

What is troubling is that SCOTUS stuffed their head into the ground on gerrymandering.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Roberts made some comment that it would be impossible to judge fairly if gerrymandering was excessively political or not. Ummm...that's why we have JUDGES, innit? In Masterpiece Cakeshop, his wing of the court was perfectly able to assess the motives of the Colorado commission that supposedly insulted the baker -- so they have no difficulty in finding allegedly corrupt motives when they want to.
Our electoral system is now deranged. Yes, Dems have gerrymandered, but the triple assault in the last 20 years is from the hard right, which is amassing power and systemic hegemony as their demographic is melting away. Voter suppression is real. Citizens United has institutionalized bribery. Gerrymandering has worked wonders for the GOP. This is illegitimate government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Roberts made some comment that it would be impossible to judge fairly if gerrymandering was excessively political or not.

I suppose this is the problem with lawyers. They lack problem solving skills and live in a world where problems and solutions not derived solely in words are worthless. I'd need to play with the data to find a solution (I've always been a fan of random generators set to some set of rules), but I've got to think it has to be quite within hand with the assistance of a bell curve.

The big trouble is, the one possible way to solve it, would be a nonpartisan commission, but 4 conservative SCOTUS justices ruled that was unconstitutional already!

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, his wing of the court was perfectly able to assess the motives of the Colorado commission that supposedly insulted the baker -- so they have no difficulty in finding allegedly corrupt motives when they want to.

It'd be like a referee not calling a clear hand ball on the line because the ref couldn't tell if the arm was outstretched like that to illegally block the ball. The ref would shake his head and say "hand balls are unfair", but I just can't judge whether it was intentional. Whether is it intentional would be if you give him a red card, not whether it was an infraction! Much like a gerrymandered map, whether intentional or not, can be invalid without putting people in jail.

Our electoral system is now deranged. Yes, Dems have gerrymandered, but the triple assault in the last 20 years is from the hard right, which is amassing power and systemic hegemony as their demographic is melting away. Voter suppression is real. Citizens United has institutionalized bribery. Gerrymandering has worked wonders for the GOP. This is illegitimate government.

California could be a much bluer state. But it isn't... and that is the right thing. Texas can't say the same (relative to being red).

 

[zorq]

Kagan emphasized that the Supreme Court had refused for “the first time ever” to “remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”

She then went on to show that workable remedies had already been thought of and applied by the lower courts.

Why does Roberts recognize the constitutional violation and yet refuse to act? His proposed solution, which is to let the politicians who benefit most from gerrymandering be the guardians against it, is preposterous.

Shame.

 

[Bomb#20]

Where in the Constitution is there a "standard" governing the judiciary to determine when partisan gerrymandering is too much, it is unfair?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3] "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Duh.

 

[James Madison]

Kagan emphasized that the Supreme Court had refused for “the first time ever” to “remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”

She then went on to show that workable remedies had already been thought of and applied by the lower courts.

Why does Roberts recognize the constitutional violation and yet refuse to act? His proposed solution, which is to let the politicians who benefit most from gerrymandering be the guardians against it, is preposterous.

Shame.

Why does Roberts recognize the constitutional violation and yet refuse to act?

Maybe, I’m going out on a thin limb here, Roberts is of the opinion there isn’t a “constitutional violation.” Why do you expect him to acknowledge the very thing he spilled a lot of ink arguing, persuasively, not to exist?

She then went on to show that workable remedies had already been thought of and applied by the lower courts.

Yep. Roberts reply to each of them. So, let’s have a productive dialogue. You post, one by one, the standards invoked by Kagan, I’ll give you Roberts reply, and explain how and why Roberts is right.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zorq]

Maybe, I’m going out on a thin limb here, Roberts is of the opinion there isn’t a “constitutional violation.” Why do you expect him to acknowledge the very thing he spilled a lot of ink arguing, persuasively, not to exist?

Roberts admits that gerymandering is "incompatible with democratic principles."
What are to to infer from that? That Roberts thinks the Constituition is not democratic document? Is he under the impression that the US Constituion was intended to guarantee that representatives pick their voters instead of the voters picking their representatives as Article 1 Section 2 clearly indicates?

She then went on to show that workable remedies had already been thought of and applied by the lower courts.

Yep. Roberts reply to each of them. So, let’s have a productive dialogue. You post, one by one, the standards invoked by Kagan, I’ll give you Roberts reply, and explain how and why Roberts is right.

No, Roberts hand waves them away. He insists that he can't figure out what "fairness looks like in this context." So he just ignores these other courts' solutions. I can agree that the distinction between gerrymandered and not-gerrymandered is not simple. But that is not a good reason to ignore the damage and constitutional transgression. The difference between a consenting adult and a minor exploited for sex might be just as vague, which is why we establish arbitrary principles (ages) to help identify and prevent the most egregious cases. Only the USSC (Or an ammendment) is in a position to correct a constitutional violation by a state legislature.

 

[James Madison]

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.

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.

Now that makes a lot of sense. Reduce whether an opinion is right or wrong to a popularity contest. What is troubling is you actually think you made a smart and intelligent remark.

What is troubling is that SCOTUS stuffed their head into the ground on gerrymandering.

It is clear to me you are of the opinion the U.S. Constitution provides an answer, a solution, for practically any problem litigated in the judiciary that is then argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. As unfathomable as it may be for you to grasp, the U.S. Constitution does not always have a solution or an answer for legal issues presented to the judiciary.

Roberts is asserting the Constitution does not provide a remedy to political gerrymandering.

 

[James Madison]

I suppose this is the problem with lawyers. They lack problem solving skills and live in a world where problems and solutions not derived solely in words are worthless. I'd need to play with the data to find a solution (I've always been a fan of random generators set to some set of rules), but I've got to think it has to be quite within hand with the assistance of a bell curve.

The big trouble is, the one possible way to solve it, would be a nonpartisan commission, but 4 conservative SCOTUS justices ruled that was unconstitutional already!

It'd be like a referee not calling a clear hand ball on the line because the ref couldn't tell if the arm was outstretched like that to illegally block the ball. The ref would shake his head and say "hand balls are unfair", but I just can't judge whether it was intentional. Whether is it intentional would be if you give him a red card, not whether it was an infraction! Much like a gerrymandered map, whether intentional or not, can be invalid without putting people in jail.

Our electoral system is now deranged. Yes, Dems have gerrymandered, but the triple assault in the last 20 years is from the hard right, which is amassing power and systemic hegemony as their demographic is melting away. Voter suppression is real. Citizens United has institutionalized bribery. Gerrymandering has worked wonders for the GOP. This is illegitimate government.

California could be a much bluer state. But it isn't... and that is the right thing. Texas can't say the same (relative to being red).

I suppose this is the problem with lawyers. They lack problem solving skills and live in a world where problems and solutions not derived solely in words are worthless.

Do you realize how stupid you sound with that nonsense generalization?

Regardless, your comment does not illustrate an actual "problem" with lawyers, and neither is Rucho v. Common Cause a product of your ill conceived "problem." Instead, your mind numbingly, stupid remark demonstrates you do not properly comprehend the issues were Rucho v. Common Cause. Here's an idea to enlighten you. The U.S. Constitution is, guess what, a document of words. Hence, it makes sense to, guess what, ascertain whether the U.S. Constitution has wording that provides a solution to the problem. Roberts is of the opinion the U.S. Constitution does not provide a solution, other than the Election Clause of Article 1. Which is to say, political gerrymandering does not violate a provision of the U.S. Constitution upon a solution can be provided but instead the Constitution commits the issue of political gerrymandering to the States and to Congress to address and remedy under the Election Clause.

Got it McFly? Hello, McFly!!!!!!

 

[James Madison]

Roberts admits that gerymandering is "incompatible with democratic principles."
What are to to infer from that? That Roberts thinks the Constituition is not democratic document? Is he under the impression that the US Constituion was intended to guarantee that representatives pick their voters instead of the voters picking their representatives as Article 1 Section 2 clearly indicates?

Yep. Roberts reply to each of them. So, let’s have a productive dialogue. You post, one by one, the standards invoked by Kagan, I’ll give you Roberts reply, and explain how and why Roberts is right.

No, Roberts hand waves them away. He insists that he can't figure out what "fairness looks like in this context." So he just ignores these other courts' solutions. I can agree that the distinction between gerrymandered and not-gerrymandered is not simple. But that is not a good reason to ignore the damage and constitutional transgression. The difference between a consenting adult and a minor exploited for sex might be just as vague, which is why we establish arbitrary principles (ages) to help identify and prevent the most egregious cases. Only the USSC (Or an ammendment) is in a position to correct a constitutional violation by a state legislature.

No, Roberts hand waves them away. He insists that he can't figure out what "fairness looks like in this context." So he just ignores these other courts' solutions.

No. You have not understood Roberts' opinion. Roberts is asserting there is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution in which those solutions are based, thereby permitting the judiciary to have the Constitution guide its direction as opposed to the tickle in my genitals approach to determining the "other solutions."

Deciding among just these different visions of fairness (you can imagine many others) poses basic questions that
are political, not legal. There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral....The same cannot be said of partisan gerrymandering claims, because the Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.​

He's right! Congressional districts, their boundaries, their shapes, have to be created. The Constitution provides no guidance how the district lines are to be drawn. The Constitution does not provide any mathematical formula, equation, or method for drawing congressional district lines. How district lines are to be drawn is vested entirely to the discretion of the States and to Congress in the Election Clause of Article 1.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

But seems very common in the US. It all seems to be about liberal vs conservative judges, rather than about judges who are learned in the law. That always struck me as disturbing too. Why are Presidents allowed to unilaterally appoint judges in the first place?

 

[jonatha]

No, Roberts hand waves them away. He insists that he can't figure out what "fairness looks like in this context." So he just ignores these other courts' solutions.

No. You have not understood Roberts' opinion. Roberts is asserting there is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution in which those solutions are based, thereby permitting the judiciary to have the Constitution guide its direction as opposed to the tickle in my genitals approach to determining the "other solutions."

Deciding among just these different visions of fairness (you can imagine many others) poses basic questions that
are political, not legal. There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral....The same cannot be said of partisan gerrymandering claims, because the Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.​

He's right! Congressional districts, their boundaries, their shapes, have to be created. The Constitution provides no guidance how the district lines are to be drawn. The Constitution does not provide any mathematical formula, equation, or method for drawing congressional district lines. How district lines are to be drawn is vested entirely to the discretion of the States and to Congress in the Election Clause of Article 1.

Yet Roberts acknowledges that certain rules regarding how they're drawn can be (and have been) dictated by the court based on Constitutional principles (Baker v. Carr for population inequality, Gomillion v. Lightfoot for racial discrimination). He simply says political gerrymandering is OK (Hunt v. Cromartie).

Since the majority seems inclined to overturn precedent it's not clear from Roberts's opinion why this particular precedent is so important.

 

[jonatha]

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

But seems very common in the US. It all seems to be about liberal vs conservative judges, rather than about judges who are learned in the law. That always struck me as disturbing too. Why are Presidents allowed to unilaterally appoint judges in the first place?

They aren't. Judges have to be confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why are Presidents allowed to unilaterally appoint judges in the first place?

That’s a good question for Justice Garland.

 

[James Madison]

No, Roberts hand waves them away. He insists that he can't figure out what "fairness looks like in this context." So he just ignores these other courts' solutions.

No. You have not understood Roberts' opinion. Roberts is asserting there is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution in which those solutions are based, thereby permitting the judiciary to have the Constitution guide its direction as opposed to the tickle in my genitals approach to determining the "other solutions."

Deciding among just these different visions of fairness (you can imagine many others) poses basic questions that
are political, not legal. There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral....The same cannot be said of partisan gerrymandering claims, because the Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.​

He's right! Congressional districts, their boundaries, their shapes, have to be created. The Constitution provides no guidance how the district lines are to be drawn. The Constitution does not provide any mathematical formula, equation, or method for drawing congressional district lines. How district lines are to be drawn is vested entirely to the discretion of the States and to Congress in the Election Clause of Article 1.

Since the majority seems inclined to overturn precedent it's not clear from Roberts's opinion why this particular precedent is so important.

Precedent was overturned? That’s vexing, what precedent was overturned?

Yet Roberts acknowledges that certain rules regarding how they're drawn can be (and have been) dictated by the court based on Constitutional principles (Baker v. Carr for population inequality, Gomillion v. Lightfoot for racial discrimination). He simply says political gerrymandering is OK (Hunt v. Cromartie).

And Roberts also argued why they are not applicable.

”Appellees contend that if we can adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims, we can also assess partisan gerrymander- ing claims. But the one-person, one-vote rule is relatively easy to administer as a matter of math. The same cannot be said of partisan gerrymandering claims, because the Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly. It hardly follows from the principle that each person must have an equal say in the election of representatives that a person is entitled to have his political party achieve repre- sentation in some way commensurate to its share of statewide support...

More fundamentally, “vote dilution” in the one-person, one-vote cases refers to the idea that each vote must carry equal weight. In other words, each representative must be accountable to (approximately) the same number of constituents. That requirement does not extend to political parties. It does not mean that each party must be influential in proportion to its number of supporters. As we stated unanimously in Gill, “this Court is not responsible for vindicating generalized partisan preferences. The Court’s constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it.”

Nor do our racial gerrymandering cases provide an appropriate standard for assessing partisan gerrymander- ing. “[N]othing in our case law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to pre- cisely the same constitutional scrutiny. In fact, our coun- try’s long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting—as well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurispru- dence, which always has reserved the strictest scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of race—would seem to compel the opposite conclusion.” Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 650 (cita- tion omitted). Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that entails. It asks instead for the elimina- tion of a racial classification. A partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the elimination of partisanship.”

That makes sense. Partisan gerrymandering is different.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zorq]

Nor do our racial gerrymandering cases provide an appropriate standard for assessing partisan gerrymander- ing. “[N]othing in our case law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to pre- cisely the same constitutional scrutiny. In fact, our coun- try’s long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting—as well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurispru- dence, which always has reserved the strictest scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of race—would seem to compel the opposite conclusion.” Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 650 (cita- tion omitted). Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that entails. It asks instead for the elimina- tion of a racial classification. A partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the elimination of partisanship.” [/I]

That makes sense. Partisan gerrymandering is different.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's odd then that both YOU and HE offer NO reason why partisan gerrymandering is actually different. I was actually intending to bring this up. Of course you can ask for the elimination of partisanship. Why can't we eliminate a partisan classification of individuals when considering district lines? Why can't we eliminate ALL classifications other than residency? In my opinion there is no good reason for ANY consideration besides residency when drawing district lines because that is all the information you need. Even detailed geographic information is superfluous.

The constitution does NOT endorse partisan discrimination or any partisanship in any context. Why would/does Roberts think that it does?


One more thing:

Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence...

Partisan gerrymandering claims DON'T ask for a fair share of political power and influence! They ask for non-discrimination based on association with political parties. You know that good stuff guaranteed and protected by the 1st ammendment? JUST like racial gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering is asking for elimination of a classification. The gargantuan discrepancy in politcal power and influence is the symptom that indicates the toxicity of gerrymandering, but it isn't the disease that gerrymandering claims aim to tackle.

 

[James Madison]

SCOTUS in 5 to 4 decision rule "Fuck democracy"

Nor do our racial gerrymandering cases provide an appropriate standard for assessing partisan gerrymander- ing. “[N]othing in our case law compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to pre- cisely the same constitutional scrutiny. In fact, our coun- try’s long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting—as well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurispru- dence, which always has reserved the strictest scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of race—would seem to compel the opposite conclusion.” Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 650 (cita- tion omitted). Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that entails. It asks instead for the elimina- tion of a racial classification. A partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the elimination of partisanship.” [/I]

That makes sense. Partisan gerrymandering is different.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's odd then that both YOU and HE offer NO reason why partisan gerrymandering is actually different. I was actually intending to bring this up. Of course you can ask for the elimination of partisanship. Why can't we eliminate a partisan classification of individuals when considering district lines? Why can't we eliminate ALL classifications other than residency? In my opinion there is no good reason for ANY consideration besides residency when drawing district lines because that is all the information you need. Even detailed geographic information is superfluous.

The constitution does NOT endorse partisan discrimination or any partisanship in any context. Why would/does Roberts think that it does?


One more thing:

Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence...

Partisan gerrymandering claims DON'T ask for a fair share of political power and influence! They ask for non-discrimination based on association with political parties. You know that good stuff guaranteed and protected by the 1st ammendment? JUST like racial gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering is asking for elimination of a classification. The gargantuan discrepancy in politcal power and influence is the symptom that indicates the toxicity of gerrymandering, but it isn't the disease that gerrymandering claims aim to tackle.

It's odd then that both YOU and HE offer NO reason why partisan gerrymandering is actually different.

It’s odd you make no argument as to why the two are so parallel as to render the differences irrelevant, thereby permitting the tests used in OTHER contexts.

But here is the difference between partisan gerrymandering and the cases addressing race based/lack of appropriate proportional representation at the State level.

First, under the EPC, laws and government action based on race or having a disparate impact strike at the core of the EPC. The 14th and 15th Amendments have as their impetus, although not the exclusive impetus, racial discrimination in general but also specifically racial discrimination in regards to voting. Racial discrimination by the States, including in regards to the vote, was a scourge the amendments were conceived to address.

The EPC wasn’t conceived to address partisan gerrymandering, which has a long history, preceding the existence of the American Republic. Indeed, the founding fathers and framers were aware of partisan gerrymandering. They produced a Constitution that didn’t abolish the practice or address it. Instead, the founders and framers participated in and advocated for the practice of partisan gerrymandering. The generation who gave us the 14th Amendment didn’t perceive partisan gerrymandering to be a problem to ever be addressed by the EPC. Instead, partisan gerrymandering was a widely known and accepted practice by the time the 14th Amendment was passed. There wasn’t a hint that the EPC was understood by anyone to address partisan gerrymandering or that partisan gerrymandering implicated any part of the 14th Amendment, unlike race.

The cases dealing with State proportional representation is very different than partisan gerrymandering. In a direct democracy, each person personally votes and their ballot is counted, and the majority vote talley prevails, consistent with majoritarian rule. A representative government, like the U.S., isn’t a direct democracy but in an attempt to adhere to the notion of majority rule, the greater number of people are entitled to a greater number of representatives, the latter constituting as a greater number of votes reflecting the greater number of people.

So, if it’s 1 rep for 10 people, and NYC has 100 people, then they should have 10 reps. Whereas a town with 10 people should have only 1 rep. This arrangement is in keeping with the principle of majoritarian rule.

What happened in Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims is the least populace parts of the States had more votes in the legislature since they had more reps in the legislature then the more populace parts of the States. This imbalance struck at the core of majoritarian representation.

Partisan gerrymandering doesn’t and isn’t based upon majoritarian rule reflected through X number of representatives. Partisan gerrymandering isn’t about diluting reps in relation to the people, but instead is about giving candidates from a particular party an advantage by placing more people of a particular party in a district by the redrawing of district lines. The number of reps to the population is still mathematically sound constitutionally, and the fact the people in the district may be represented by more people of a different party doesn’t disturb the majoritarian principle.

That is what Roberts was getting at.

Partisan gerrymandering claims DON'T ask for a fair share of political power and influence! They ask for non-discrimination based on association with political parties.

This ignores an inherent feature of a claim of discrimination. A discrimination claim is to allege UNFAIR treatment in relation to someone or something or both!

You know that good stuff guaranteed and protected by the 1st ammendment?

The partisan gerrymandering the founding and framing generation engaged in and didn’t understand to implicate any part of the 1st Amendment? Okay.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zorq]

It's odd then that both YOU and HE offer NO reason why partisan gerrymandering is actually different. I was actually intending to bring this up. Of course you can ask for the elimination of partisanship. Why can't we eliminate a partisan classification of individuals when considering district lines? Why can't we eliminate ALL classifications other than residency? In my opinion there is no good reason for ANY consideration besides residency when drawing district lines because that is all the information you need. Even detailed geographic information is superfluous.

The constitution does NOT endorse partisan discrimination or any partisanship in any context. Why would/does Roberts think that it does?


One more thing:

Partisan gerrymandering claims DON'T ask for a fair share of political power and influence! They ask for non-discrimination based on association with political parties. You know that good stuff guaranteed and protected by the 1st ammendment? JUST like racial gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering is asking for elimination of a classification. The gargantuan discrepancy in politcal power and influence is the symptom that indicates the toxicity of gerrymandering, but it isn't the disease that gerrymandering claims aim to tackle.

It's odd then that both YOU and HE offer NO reason why partisan gerrymandering is actually different.

It’s odd you make no argument as to why the two are so parallel as to render the differences irrelevant, thereby permitting the tests used in OTHER contexts.

But here is the difference between partisan gerrymandering and the cases addressing race based/lack of appropriate proportional representation at the State level.

First, under the EPC, laws and government action based on race or having a disparate impact strike at the core of the EPC. The 14th and 15th Amendments have as their impetus, although not the exclusive impetus, racial discrimination in general but also specifically racial discrimination in regards to voting. Racial discrimination by the States, including in regards to the vote, was a scourge the amendments were conceived to address.

The EPC wasn’t conceived to address partisan gerrymandering, which has a long history, preceding the existence of the American Republic. Indeed, the founding fathers and framers were aware of partisan gerrymandering. They produced a Constitution that didn’t abolish the practice or address it.

The term was identified and coined in 1812. Well after the constituition was ratified in 1787 (25 years) That's a long time. Ben Franklin died in 1790. But even then, gerrymandering was often of a different sort where the party who draws the lines tried to redistrict a popular opponent incumbent's residence into an unfamiliar district to thwart their incumbent momentum. Not all gerrymandering is the same and so even these founders 25 years later may not have been concentrating on partisan gerrymandering.

Instead, the founders and framers participated in and advocated for the practice of partisan gerrymandering.

(Citation Needed)

The generation who gave us the 14th Amendment didn’t perceive partisan gerrymandering to be a problem to ever be addressed by the EPC. Instead, partisan gerrymandering was a widely known and accepted practice by the time the 14th Amendment was passed. There wasn’t a hint that the EPC was understood by anyone to address partisan gerrymandering or that partisan gerrymandering implicated any part of the 14th Amendment, unlike race.

The problem has always been that politicians don't care about gerrymandering! Because the ones who gerrymander are the ones who stay in power! The people of the 1860s had bigger fish to fry, but that doesn't mean that partisan gerrymandering isn't worth frying, or that it isn't fryable.

The cases dealing with State proportional representation is very different than partisan gerrymandering. In a direct democracy, each person personally votes and their ballot is counted, and the majority vote talley prevails, consistent with majoritarian rule. A representative government, like the U.S., isn’t a direct democracy but in an attempt to adhere to the notion of majority rule, the greater number of people are entitled to a greater number of representatives, the latter constituting as a greater number of votes reflecting the greater number of people.

So, if it’s 1 rep for 10 people, and NYC has 100 people, then they should have 10 reps. Whereas a town with 10 people should have only 1 rep. This arrangement is in keeping with the principle of majoritarian rule.

What happened in Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims is the least populace parts of the States had more votes in the legislature since they had more reps in the legislature then the more populace parts of the States. This imbalance struck at the core of majoritarian representation.

Yeah, we agree that this part isn't directly applicable to partisan gerrymandering, except that the intuitive sense of justice that informs it is the exact same intuitive sense of justice that informs the rejection of partisan gerrymandering.

Partisan gerrymandering doesn’t and isn’t based upon majoritarian rule reflected through X number of representatives. Partisan gerrymandering isn’t about diluting reps in relation to the people, but instead is about giving candidates from a particular party an advantage by placing more people of a particular party in a district by the redrawing of district lines. The number of reps to the population is still mathematically sound constitutionally, and the fact the people in the district may be represented by more people of a different party doesn’t disturb the majoritarian principle.

That is what Roberts was getting at.

And that's fine. Moving on.

Partisan gerrymandering claims DON'T ask for a fair share of political power and influence! They ask for non-discrimination based on association with political parties.

This ignores an inherent feature of a claim of discrimination. A discrimination claim is to allege UNFAIR treatment in relation to someone or something or both!

How do you not see unfair treatment. People exercise their 1st ammendment rights to free speech and association by declaring themselves members of a political party. Government entities then conspire to deliberately nullify the impact of those people's votes by either cracking or packing their votes into districts based on their declared association with a political party. It works exactly the same as the racial gerrymandering discrimination. It boils down to politicians choosing to disenfranchise voters based on their declared preferences. Certainly that is a violation of the 1st ammendment. Well, that is exactly what gerrymandering aims to do and accomplishes.

If the Nevada Senate passed a bill, signed by the govenor, nullifying the voting rights of any voter in that state who had in the past 10 years declared their party affiliation as "Republican." What part of the constituition would used by the USSC to strike that bill down?

You know that good stuff guaranteed and protected by the 1st ammendment?

The partisan gerrymandering the founding and framing generation engaged in and didn’t understand to implicate any part of the 1st Amendment? Okay.

Yeah, the founders were perfect psychics and political savants who were able to predict and anticipate every problem the constitution might encounter. That's why the supreme court has been busy every year for the past 232 years and we only have 27 amendments to the constitution. This incredulous attitude is unwarranted. That transgressions have gone unpunished and uncorrected in the past is no reason to ignore them in the present.