Gerrymandering, For Lack Of A Better Word, IS Good...

[seer]

Another win for the Constitution!

Supreme Court allows severe partisan gerrymandering to continue

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.

Roberts:"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/polit...urt/index.html

[Teallaura]

Wow...

[carpedm9587]

Another win for the Constitution!

And a loss for justice and our democratic model.

If/when this experiment we call the United States fails, I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift.

[oxmixmudd]

Another win for the Constitution!

Another loss for democracy. The districts should not be partitioned to favor a party - though I can understand why at the federal level they would feel it is up to the states themselves to enforce.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

And a loss for justice and our democratic model.

If/when this experiment we call the United States fails, I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift.

I tend to agree. It is sad that so many do not understand why power must not be given to a small group, or why voting should be a simple and unbiased expression of what the population desires. It's as if a very large number of people in this country don't understand why this country even exists - the sort of oppressive government it is a protest against.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

I tend to agree. It is sad that so many do not understand why power must not be given to a small group, or why voting should be a simple and unbiased expression of what the population desires. It's as if a very large number of people in this country don't understand why this country even exists - the sort of oppressive government it is a protest against.


Jim

What the courts are basically saying is, "the political process that gives rise to gerrymandering needs to fix the problem," effectively taking the only institution that is supposed to be free of party bias out of the equation, and leaving the institutions that operate on "party bias" to solve a problem that the party in power will never want to solve.

I would say "I hope the Democrats take power and put a stop to this," but I suspect the Democrats will only continue the practice. Just because Republicans currently dominate the gerrymandering model doesn't mean the Democrats won't do exactly the same thing when they take power.

I have little confidence in the honesty and just behavior of either party.

[Leonhard]

Gross.

[rogue06]

And a loss for justice and our democratic model.

If/when this experiment we call the United States fails, I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift.

Soooo, it won't be creating open borders and allowing non-citizens to vote or something similar but rather allowing what has been going on for over 200 years to continue that will somehow, in some way, be the pivotal shift that causes the country to fail.

It is only considered polite to offer to share whatever it is that you're smoking there.

[rogue06]

Wow...

Indeed.

The courts were given an opportunity to greatly expand their powers and they turned it down.

You certainly don't see that every day.

[carpedm9587]

Soooo, it won't be creating open borders and allowing non-citizens to vote or something similar but rather allowing what has been going on for over 200 years to continue that will somehow, in some way, be the pivotal shift that causes the country to fail.

It is only considered polite to offer to share whatever it is that you're smoking there.

Our country had open borders before and there is no appreciable risk that we are going back to that model. There is no evidence that non-voters are voting to any appreciable degree. Meanwhile, the age of computers has shifted "gerrymandering" into a new, not-previously-seen domain. So yes, I think this will likely be the tipping point. Or perhaps they will go back to Citizen's United as the starting place.

[Mountain Man]

And a loss for justice and our democratic model.

If/when this experiment we call the United States fails, I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift.

Of course you are well aware that the United States is not a democracy.

The real problem is that political parties which are private organizations have taken control of the government which is supposed to function for the public's interests. This latest ruling is not the beginning of the end but simply a symptom of a problem that has existed for decades.

[rogue06]

Our country had open borders before and there is no appreciable risk that we are going back to that model.

*snort*

Meanwhile, back in the real world for most of our history we had much, and I do mean 'much,' tighter restrictions on immigration.


And you are still being greedy by not offering to share.

[seer]

Another loss for democracy. The districts should not be partitioned to favor a party - though I can understand why at the federal level they would feel it is up to the states themselves to enforce.

Jim

No Jim, there is no Constitutional justification for Federal courts to be involved. It is a issue for the states...

[carpedm9587]

*snort*

Meanwhile, back in the real world for most of our history we had much, and I do mean 'much,' tighter restrictions on immigration.

And you are still being greedy by not offering to share.

Our immigration policies have been essentially all over the map over time. They have gone from very lax to very restrictive and places in between. To call them any one thing is to ignore a significant chunk of our history. Indeed, the very first immigration act, IIRC, was in 1790 and allowed any white person who was free and in "good standing" and had been resident here for more than two years to apply for citizenship. There is a decent breakdown of the timeline here if you are interested.

Anti-immigration sentiment in the U.S. has waxed and waned over the years, largely in response to social conditions and the presence of a party/individual to whip the sentiment into a frenzy. We certainly have that today.

[seer]

And a loss for justice and our democratic model.

If/when this experiment we call the United States fails, I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift.

Yes historians who hate the Constitution...