Posted on 06/19/2018 10:32:30 AM PDT by SMGFan
The Supreme Court’s 9-0 nondecision in Gill v. Whitford was more than a little anticlimactic. The Court had been asked to decide if extreme partisan gerrymandering can be challenged in federal court and if so, what standard should apply. (Extreme partisan gerrymandering allows a party to maintain disproportionate control of a state’s legislature or congressional delegation even if the majority of the state’s voters cast their ballots for candidates of the other party.)
The Court decided neither question, ruling unanimously that the plaintiffs — Democrats in Wisconsin challenging the legislative map Republicans put in place after the 2010 census — lacked standing.
The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, made two basic points. First, it characterized the plaintiffs’ claim as a complaint that the way the districts were drawn “diluted” their votes, making them less effective than the votes of other voters, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Second, it said that the plaintiffs failed to show that they had actually suffered that kind of injury, and it remanded the case to allow them to attempt to do so. (Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have simply ordered the case dismissed.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
As a Wisconsin voter/resident, I wish the Supremes had just dismissed this case and sent the plaintiffs home with nothing. Now the WI Democrats will try to talk a WI federal judge into starting it up again. Drawing the voting district lines has always been the perk for the party in power at the time it’s done. the Democrats were happy the many times they did it. Now that Gov. Walker and Republicans were able to be in power long enough to draw the lines, the Democrats cried. Both parties want safe districts but none for the other party. The only fair way is to have districts drawn on contiguous boundaries and natural features such as rivers, not Gerrymandering.
Regarding gerrymandering, let’s get rid of the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment can disappear too.
Once 16 & 17A are out of the way and patriots support Pres. Trump in politically “forcing” Congress to surrender state powers that the feds have stolen from the states back to the states, the following will probably happen imo.
Low-information citizens will lose interest in DC to the extent that they won’t be able to guess who the current president is. even after three tries.
We should start voting based on acreage, one vote per acre. That would shut the liberal pukes up!
Well, yeah. That's always question #1. If the plaintiff has no standing, there's no case to argue, and no point in letting him take up oxygen in the courtroom.
And the 19th. That one guarantees that emotion and can’t we all just get along has a malevolent influence on the passage of laws.
Why take the case ? Hear the case at the court , make us wait a few months?
Drawing district lines is a political act. The Courts hurt their credibility as neutral adjudicators when they get involved.
FL voters stupidly turned over the drawing of congressional districts to the moonbat state judiciary a couple years ago.
I'm not a lawyer, but my observation is that who has standing may be simple to decide in most cases, but in others turns legitimately on fundamental issues that need to be fought over.
For example, I think there are quite a few cases that need to be brought that will turn on who has standing--and the fulcrum will be the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. How many times over the past hundred or more years has the FedGov stuck its nose where it simply has no right to be a party in the dispute? Where the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law . . ." and Congress has? Or even stupider, where some Federal judge or Justice has a feeling about something and wants to make it into law?
It's a battle that will have to be argued and won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.