2019 SCOTUS cases

[UNI88]

As for the gerrymandering, I dislike gerrymandering as much as the next person (assuming, but I guess there are fans of gerrymandering out there), but I also think it's a legislative function to deal with. We vote for the legislators that do the gerrymandering - we don't like it, vote them out.

I think I agree with the idea that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering but I think it needs to. It'd be very difficult to do but the Constitution needs to be Amended to prohibit it.

I don't think it's just a matter of voting those that do it out. People get into a sufficient position of power then they gerrymander to protect their own seats at the State level. They see to it that the people who would vote them out aren't in their district to the greatest extent possible. Or maybe some are in their district but they make sure to distribute them so that their influence is minimized.

It's not a good thing.

Just say that instead of voters picking their representative, the representatives are picking their voters and that's wrong.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

I'm good with both results. The late decision to add citizenship to the questions was too late. If you want to include it in the next one get it in up front and not just try to sneak it in at the end. As for the gerrymandering, I dislike gerrymandering as much as the next person (assuming, but I guess there are fans of gerrymandering out there), but I also think it's a legislative function to deal with. We vote for the legislators that do the gerrymandering - we don't like it, vote them out. Judges are nearly as responsive to voters and there's no one single map/method on how to properly draw districts. I know it'll lead to continual bickering, but that's also a facet of politics in general anyway so let the bickering continue.

I get the feeling that you are a frustrated would-be law student.

I actually would've loved to go to law school - not sure I'd want to be a lawyer, but law school would've been fun. Even took the LSAT as I was thinking of being a patent lawyer after graduating as a ChemE from UD. Oh well, thank goodness for football message boards with a political section.

[GannonFan]

I think I agree with the idea that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering but I think it needs to. It'd be very difficult to do but the Constitution needs to be Amended to prohibit it.

I don't think it's just a matter of voting those that do it out. People get into a sufficient position of power then they gerrymander to protect their own seats at the State level. They see to it that the people who would vote them out aren't in their district to the greatest extent possible. Or maybe some are in their district but they make sure to distribute them so that their influence is minimized.

It's not a good thing.

Just say that instead of voters picking their representative, the representatives are picking their voters and that's wrong.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

If I felt like we could have perfectly ungerrymandered maps in every state I would say yes. But other than Iowa, the corrections I've seen for gerrymandering just amount to gerrymandering in the other direction, including remedies put in place by supposedly neutral judicial groups. And at the core of the problem is really the apathy of the voters themselves. If you really wanted to thwart gerrymandering, it would be easy to do so at the ballot box by an informed and conscientious electorate. So again, we get the government that we deserve. But again, I'm in favor of the SCOTUS ruling because it keeps the arguments over gerrymandering where it belongs, in the legislatures and with the voters, rather than adding an additional layer of complexity by dragging the judiciary into it, especially since they've been just as partisan as the folks they are judging over.

[89Hen]

If you really wanted to thwart gerrymandering, it would be easy to do so at the ballot box by an informed and conscientious electorate.

How's that?

[GannonFan]

If you really wanted to thwart gerrymandering, it would be easy to do so at the ballot box by an informed and conscientious electorate.

How's that?

Vote for people who won't create tortuous looking districts and vote against people who do. All districts, legislative or judicial based designed, are all gerrymandered to a point, so you'll always have some level of it. But to avoid the extreme stuff we've seen just punish those legislators who create them by voting them out and voting in ones who pledge to correct them and not to create them. Our problem is that we don't make elected officials accountable enough and we lazily given them passes when they create crap like what we've seen. Asking the SCOTUS to be the backstop for us because we're too lazy to fix it ourselves is just symbolic of this.

[89Hen]

How's that?

Vote for people who won't create tortuous looking districts and vote against people who do. All districts, legislative or judicial based designed, are all gerrymandered to a point, so you'll always have some level of it. But to avoid the extreme stuff we've seen just punish those legislators who create them by voting them out and voting in ones who pledge to correct them and not to create them. Our problem is that we don't make elected officials accountable enough and we lazily given them passes when they create crap like what we've seen. Asking the SCOTUS to be the backstop for us because we're too lazy to fix it ourselves is just symbolic of this.

You're basically asking people to become single issue voters on an issue that will hurt their own party. Not going to happen.

[GannonFan]

Vote for people who won't create tortuous looking districts and vote against people who do. All districts, legislative or judicial based designed, are all gerrymandered to a point, so you'll always have some level of it. But to avoid the extreme stuff we've seen just punish those legislators who create them by voting them out and voting in ones who pledge to correct them and not to create them. Our problem is that we don't make elected officials accountable enough and we lazily given them passes when they create crap like what we've seen. Asking the SCOTUS to be the backstop for us because we're too lazy to fix it ourselves is just symbolic of this.

You're basically asking people to become single issue voters on an issue that will hurt their own party. Not going to happen.

Then we get what we get. People being blindly partisan is what got us into this boat anyway, and if they don't want to change (and there's ample evidence they don't) then we get the government that we vote into place. That's our choice. Punting the choice to the judiciary, where they will be just as partisan but with fancy robes, isn't a better option in my opinion.

[89Hen]

You're basically asking people to become single issue voters on an issue that will hurt their own party. Not going to happen.

Then we get what we get. People being blindly partisan is what got us into this boat anyway, and if they don't want to change (and there's ample evidence they don't) then we get the government that we vote into place. That's our choice. Punting the choice to the judiciary, where they will be just as partisan but with fancy robes, isn't a better option in my opinion.

I get what you're saying, but think about it. Are you going to vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on economic and social issues just because they claim to be against gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when one party is entrenched. Maryland can't overturn our districts because the Dems have a veto-proof majority. You really expect Dems in my state to vote for Republicans to take away their super majority and extra House seat?

[GannonFan]

Then we get what we get. People being blindly partisan is what got us into this boat anyway, and if they don't want to change (and there's ample evidence they don't) then we get the government that we vote into place. That's our choice. Punting the choice to the judiciary, where they will be just as partisan but with fancy robes, isn't a better option in my opinion.

I get what you're saying, but think about it. Are you going to vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on economic and social issues just because they claim to be against gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when one party is entrenched. Maryland can't overturn our districts because the Dems have a veto-proof majority. You really expect Dems in my state to vote for Republicans to take away their super majority and extra House seat?

Then vote for candidates or for referrendums that call for other ways to draw districts. Neutral commissions like Iowa has, or state constitutional amendments to do something similar. That way you're not doing it one politician at a time. But all of those things are things that aren't judicial remedies, which is the point. Don't rely on the courts to come up with what's "fair" in terms of what is essentially a political decision.

[Ivytalk]

I saw some article yesterday — Reason, I believe (too lazy to look it up) — saying that Roberts is the new Anthony Kennedy. The new “swing vote” that the liberals will try to co-opt, given CJ John’s excessive respect for precedent and the public reputation of the Court.

[GannonFan]

I saw some article yesterday — Reason, I believe (too lazy to look it up) — saying that Roberts is the new Anthony Kennedy. The new “swing vote” that the liberals will try to co-opt, given CJ John’s excessive respect for precedent and the public reputation of the Court.

I can see that - and he's already acting like that, but I'm sure most will still see his as significantly to the right of Kennedy. He likes to avoid the Court getting too much to one side - you could see it yesterday, he was the swing pushing the census question off to another time, and then he was the swing taking the courts out of the business of drawing political maps. The Court drifts to the right, but he's stopping it from being a pell-mell rush to the right. He did spend a lot of time with O'Connor and Kennedy so he comes from the understanding of gradual changes. IMO of course.

[UNI88]

I get what you're saying, but think about it. Are you going to vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on economic and social issues just because they claim to be against gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when one party is entrenched. Maryland can't overturn our districts because the Dems have a veto-proof majority. You really expect Dems in my state to vote for Republicans to take away their super majority and extra House seat?

Then vote for candidates or for referendums that call for other ways to draw districts. Neutral commissions like Iowa has, or state constitutional amendments to do something similar. That way you're not doing it one politician at a time. But all of those things are things that aren't judicial remedies, which is the point. Don't rely on the courts to come up with what's "fair" in terms of what is essentially a political decision.

I don't disagree with you in theory Ganny but the system is rigged to make this difficult.

In Illinois, the Speaker of the House is also the Democratic Party Chair and controls the purse strings for candidates. He allows the candidates to say what they need to on the campaign trail but they don't cross him in chamber or they'll be primaried right out of Springfield. He brings a lot of pork to his district so there is no chance of his constituents voting him out and losing that influence. His has also torpedoed every attempt to put a fair map referendum on the ballot either in court or by stuffing the ballot with trivial initiatives (Illinois limits the number of referendum items).

[Skjellyfetti]

Womp womp.

2020 census will be printed without citizenship question

A Justice Department official confirmed to ABC News on Tuesday that the 2020 census will be printed without inclusion of a citizenship question, marking the end of the controversial effort mounted by the Trump Administration.

On Monday, President Donald Trump said he was still "looking at" the possibility of trying to delay the census from being printed after the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday to block the administration from adding the question to the 2020 questionnaire.

In an email to plaintiffs of the case today, DOJ trial attorney Kate Bailey said "the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process."

The Supreme Court's ruling last week seemed to leave open the possibility that the administration could make another attempt to add the question, if it provided a different explanation, after Chief Justice John Roberts said the Commerce Department's initial rationale "seems to have been contrived."

"I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement on Tuesday. "The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census."


The Census Bureau had previously set a target date of early July to begin printing the questionnaire in order to have it prepared for delivery to the American public by the April 1 deadline.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/202 ... ssion=true