Posted on 06/29/2019 7:14:07 AM PDT by centurion316
The most important role of the federal judiciary, including the supreme court, is to check the political process by enforcing the constitution.
At times, the court has performed this role admirably, as it did when it brought an end to the laws that created apartheid and required legal segregation of the races. At other times, the court has failed miserably – for example in continually upholding slavery before the civil war, and in allowing the government to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans during the second world war.
As the supreme court finished its term on Thursday, it once again had a mixed record of being willing to stand up to the political process.
Most importantly, the court said federal courts cannot hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering. Political gerrymandering is when the political party that controls a legislature draws election districts to maximize safe seats for that party. For example, in one of the cases before the court, the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature drew congressional districts with the explicit goal of ensuring that Republicans won 10 of 13 seats in the House of Representatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Writing on instructions from the Central Committe, Comrade Chermerinsky turns to the Communist British newspaper, the Guardian to lecture us on the Constitution.
He proclaims that the most important function of the Supreme Court is to check the political process. The communist translation is that the role of the Supreme Court (and the Judiciary in general) is to interfere when the people representatives fail to enact the Central Committee's agenda.
Actually, the role of the Supreme Court is to resolve disputes using the Constitution of the U.S. and the rule of law. It has nothing to do with checking the political process (the "wrong" political process in the mind of Comrade Chemerinsky.)
He speaks to two decisions: the Gerrymandering issue that was based on two cases, one brought against North Carolina and the other brought against Maryland. The Comrade was silent on the Maryland case because they approve of their Gerrymandering, they're Democrats. But they are aghast at what North Carolina did and they expected and demanded that the Supreme Court impose their preferred outcome on the rest of us.
Similarly, Comrade Chermerinsky reads what he wants to read into the Census issue. You won't find a discussion that the citizenship question has been in the Census since they started asking questions as a part of the Census, until, of course, Obama came into office when the question disappeared like an unfavored member of the Politbureau. They lost on the two Constitutional points, but won on the process foul that the Commerce Department violated some sacred tome called the Administrative Process Act (APA). I think that his point is that the APA is more important than the Constitution.
Bump
Oh NOW the Guardian and the liberal don’t like gerrymandering.
They had no problem with it though when they controlled the redistricting after the censuses of 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and most of 1990.
What do they think allowed the democrats to control the House of Representatives from 1930-1994 with only two breaks in control (1947-49, 1953-54)??
They don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. THEN they want the courts to intercede!
Well too bad!
You're right... odd how commies and AOC et al sound alike...
Roberts is a prime example. He’s either liberal or someone has a ton of dirt on him and is pulling his strings
Hasn’t been for over 100 years
No. Half of the Supreme Court “justices” are as corrupt as anyone else in this the decadent phase of Western Civilization in America.
Relocate the Supreme Court to Wichita,Kansas. That would be a step in the direction of weeding out the snooty coastal bias.
Exactly. Dems have mastered gerrymandering for decades. If it’s not a legitimate political spoil from elections, how come he never had time to object when they were doing it? Now that Republicans are finally getting a turn, all of a sudden it’s anti-Democratic.
The first Census in 1790 provided the name of the head of the household and a tabulation of each person in the household, including slaves. No questions. This was the format until the 1850 Census when the names of every free person was added to the Census together with a question about nativity (State or Country) for every free person. The 1890 Census was the first Census to specifically ask the citizenship status of all persons.
I don't agree, the Supreme Court has been much more politicized in the recent history dating back to the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. Roberts was told by his Fairy Godmother or someone like her that he had to be nice to the four Lefties who are there specifically to scuttle the Constitution. That makes no sense, but the ship is turning nonetheless.
This is just one of the many examples of left-wing hypocrisy.
The Supreme Court is politicized beyond repair.
Roberts is a prime example. He’s either liberal or someone has a ton of dirt on him and is pulling his strings
Both.
Also when you let someone quote “ wise Latina” and rule on Obamacare when you were involved in defending it in a prior position you know its all about politics, gender, race, etc....
Throw in the take down attempt of Kavanaugh and you see it for what it is... Stack the decks and blame it on someone else....
My tax dollars are going to illegals in the form of “ aid” given to them so I want to know how many.
The pols don’t want that connection to be made.
The Supreme Court has always been a third house of Congress with only 9 members who are appointed by the President and not elected by the people. It was done like this by design.
JoMa
So another person completely clueless about the Constitution and the law, "teaching" people in class about the Constitution and the law.
Notice how he leads off only discussing a Republican drawn map and not seeming to be nearly as concerned about Democrats doing the same thing.
Like so many things, it is perfectly fine as long as they are in charge of it. The Democrats dominated the process to keep themselves in power in the House for several decades - now that Republicans have managed to win control of more things in the last 10 years it is now a crisis.
Democrat gerrymandering good, Republican gerrymandering bad. This is exactly what the Democrats were trying to get the courts to do for them. Their arguments rest on the difference between the way that the two parties do gerrymandering. Republicans want to gerrymander based on geography because like minded people tend to live together clustered on the landscape. Democrats want to gerrymander based on identity politics, drawing lines on an ethnic living arrangement pattern. They wanted the courts to prohibit the Republican method and endorse the Democrat method. They won't quit trying.
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.