• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Supreme Court declines stay in NC redistricting

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RALEIGH (WTVD) --
The U.S. Supreme Court won't stop a lower-court order that demanded North Carolina legislators draw a new congressional map. Friday's decision means House primary elections won't happen next month as scheduled and are now in June.
Click to expand...

Before Scalia's death, Politico was reporting that the lower court ruling would be stayed, and the Republicans would be allowed to proceed with the maps drawn as they were. Scalia would have been the deciding vote. Instead, in what appears to be a 4-4 decision, the lower court ruling stands. Although the SCOTUS decision does not set precedent, this is a setback for Republicans, as gerrymandered district lines will likely be more closely looked at in the future.

This is the first fallout as a result of Scalia's death. There will be more, but more importantly, until a new justice is appointed, there will be no settled law in any SCOTUS decision. Decisions this year (assuming that Scalia is not replaced), will benefit both Conservatives and Liberals, depending on which way the lower court ruled in each individual case. None of these decisions, however, will be settled law, and they will most likely need to be argued again once SCOTUS is back to full capacity.

In the end, Scalia's death is a huge blow to the concept of Constitutional originalism.

Article is here.
 
danarhea said:
Before Scalia's death, Politico was reporting that the lower court ruling would be stayed, and the Republicans would be allowed to proceed with the maps drawn as they were. Scalia would have been the deciding vote. Instead, in what appears to be a 4-4 decision, the lower court ruling stands. Although the SCOTUS decision does not set precedent, this is a setback for Republicans, as gerrymandered district lines will likely be more closely looked at in the future.

This is the first fallout as a result of Scalia's death. There will be more, but more importantly, until a new justice is appointed, there will be no settled law in any SCOTUS decision. Decisions this year (assuming that Scalia is not replaced), will benefit both Conservatives and Liberals, depending on which way the lower court ruled in each individual case. None of these decisions, however, will be settled law, and they will most likely need to be argued again once SCOTUS is back to full capacity.

In the end, Scalia's death is a huge blow to the concept of Constitutional originalism.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Small clarification: 4-4 decisions will not set any official precedent. Something 5-3 still will, obviously. (or there's one case that's expected to be 4-3 as ... Kagan (?) is recusing)

Scalia's constitutional originalism was secondary. He was perfectly willing to flip that around when it suited his partisan ideological desires.
 
Deuce said:
Scalia's constitutional originalism was secondary. He was perfectly willing to flip that around when it suited his partisan ideological desires.
Click to expand...

True enough.
The SC justices are highly intelligent---well, maybe not Thomas---and quite capable of concealing their ideology in obfuscating legalese.
What else would anyone expect, they're all lawyers for gawdssake.
 
Deuce said:
Small clarification: 4-4 decisions will not set any official precedent. Something 5-3 still will, obviously. (or there's one case that's expected to be 4-3 as ... Kagan (?) is recusing)

Scalia's constitutional originalism was secondary. He was perfectly willing to flip that around when it suited his partisan ideological desires.
Click to expand...


About precedent, read my post again. I already said that. LOL.
 
Frankly, I think gerrymandering prior to national Census data is made available is wrong. I don't know what statistical data local, county and states use when they make these decisions to redraw district lines (which usually go along party lines between Senate elections), but since the Constitution requires that a national Census be taken every 10-years (Art I., Sect. 2, Clause 3: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."), I think it's only fitting that population data based on national Census statistic per local/state demographics be studied carefully by a bipartisan commission at the state level before district lines can be redrawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom