• 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!

Supreme Court sidesteps decision on partisan gerrymandering in rulings on Wisconsin, Maryland cases

Anagram said:
It's not. They've explicitly held in Davis that if a judicially cognizable standard be introduced, that partisan gerrymandering would violate the Equal Protection clause. Considering the number of methods that haven't been tested, including the ones brought up in Gill and Benisek, it seems like a very important distinction.
Click to expand...

We'll disagree. I think SCOTUS was signaling skepticism that any such standard exists.
 
Jack Hays said:
We'll disagree. I think SCOTUS was signaling skepticism that any such standard exists.
Click to expand...

There's definitely been skepticism among some members. Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Rehnquist have argued that way. But in each case decided so far, a majority of justices have believed in the existence of such a standard.
 
PeteEU said:
I agree % of the vote is most fair. Problem is that is what the GOP does not want at all.. If you go by districts they constructed to give a majority of house seats to the GOP, then the state would also go to the GOP candidate... which is what such system would be designed for.
Click to expand...

Libs do the same damn thing so I guess they don't want it fair either.
 
JANFU said:
I think they punted back to lower courts for various reasons. Divided on how to define egregious gerrymandering, divided on how to address this with what formulas that could set precedent, sent back to lower courts, who handle these cases first to hopefully let them decide/find ways of defining the issue of egregious gerrymandering, and what formulas/definitions may/can be used.

Bottom line is that when one by party definition is subjected to this, they have their vote discounted, many will not vote due to it has no effect in the results, that suppresses voter turnout/participation and just one more reason to despise politicians and the electoral process.
Click to expand...

If it's punted back down to the lower courts, correct me if I'm wrong, those lower courts will further define the matter with another ruling at some point, yes?
Conceivably it could wind up going right back to the SCOTUS who, upon reading the newer ruling, might decide to hear the case, yes?
 
Anagram said:
There's definitely been skepticism among some members. Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Rehnquist have argued that way. But in each case decided so far, a majority of justices have believed in the existence of such a standard.
Click to expand...

And yet it was never identified. That's how SCOTUS upholds the theoretical viability of the law.
 
Jack Hays said:
And yet it was never identified. That's how SCOTUS upholds the theoretical viability of the law.
Click to expand...

But if they wanted to signal that no such standard existed, they could've easily done so rather than explicitly writing that they believed such a standard was possible as Kennedy and other have, or explicitly endorsing standards as others have. Personally, I haven't seen one's that convinced me yet, but I think you're overreading into what they've written in that one could never exist.
 
Anagram said:
But if they wanted to signal that no such standard existed, they could've easily done so rather than explicitly writing that they believed such a standard was possible as Kennedy and other have, or explicitly endorsing standards as others have. Personally, I haven't seen one's that convinced me yet, but I think you're overreading into what they've written in that one could never exist.
Click to expand...

A negative cannot be proven, so they will never say the standard does not exist. They can say no standard has been identified, and they can say that forever.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
If it's punted back down to the lower courts, correct me if I'm wrong, those lower courts will further define the matter with another ruling at some point, yes?
Conceivably it could wind up going right back to the SCOTUS who, upon reading the newer ruling, might decide to hear the case, yes?
Click to expand...

Truly I do not know. I think that SCOTUS s highly hesitant to make a ruling using various demographic programs as the go to for States to use.
I think they are waiting for lower courts to begin the definitions of what they use to define if gerrymandering took place.
 
JANFU said:
Truly I do not know. I think that SCOTUS s highly hesitant to make a ruling using various demographic programs as the go to for States to use.
I think they are waiting for lower courts to begin the definitions of what they use to define if gerrymandering took place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear, because that's exactly what I was asking.

"Here you guys go, we're taking a pass. Come back when you have something more clearly defined and maybe we'll rule on it and some of you will get candy and some of you won't."
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Perhaps I wasn't clear, because that's exactly what I was asking.

"Here you guys go, we're taking a pass. Come back when you have something more clearly defined and maybe we'll rule on it and some of you will get candy and some of you won't."
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, just adding to it as I am confused as to why this has not been addressed in a highly functioning Democracy.
It is astounding how a country can preach freedom, the sacred right to vote yet continue to screw over the minority in the State. And what is more boggling is when a State does this, it is in effect for 10 years. Unless challenged and won in the courts.

Why is it left to the courts to decide this? Party corruption.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
A negative cannot be proven, so they will never say the standard does not exist.
Click to expand...

Sure they might. Several justices, though never a majority, have wanted to declare it a non-justiciable political question for exactly the reason they don't think a standard can exist. Because a majority of justices wouldn't sign onto that, I have to take them at their word that they think a standard may exist. If they didn't, it would only be too easy to sign on with the others.
 
Anagram said:
Sure they might. Several justices, though never a majority, have wanted to declare it a non-justiciable political question for exactly the reason they don't think a standard can exist. Because a majority of justices wouldn't sign onto that, I have to take them at their word that they think a standard may exist. If they didn't, it would only be too easy to sign on with the others.
Click to expand...

Again, we'll disagree. Shows more restraint to simply say no standard has been identified.
 
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli..._hp-top-table-main_court-1045a:homepage/story


Why is it that this continues. Each Party wants control of State House's to in effect screw the other parties voters.
Other countries have addressed this. Yet disenfranchising the other Party's voter base runs rampant within the US Political system.


Redistribution Federal Electoral Districts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_commission

Schwarzenegger: Gerrymandering 'one of the biggest scams' pulled on the American people | TheHill
Click to expand...

I suspect it has something to do with Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed by in each state by the legislature thereof;"

Perhaps and this is just a guess that gerrymandering falls under manner. I don't know.
 
JANFU said:
Yes you are correct, just adding to it as I am confused as to why this has not been addressed in a highly functioning Democracy.
It is astounding how a country can preach freedom, the sacred right to vote yet continue to screw over the minority in the State. And what is more boggling is when a State does this, it is in effect for 10 years. Unless challenged and won in the courts.

Why is it left to the courts to decide this? Party corruption.
Click to expand...

Because no one wants to define something that could hurt them later. Both the Dem and Reps love gerrymandering, they just love it when it helps them and hate it when it doesn't. IMO gerrymandering is done to prevent third parties from being able to take foothold anywhere. From time to time an independent third party can get in, but it usually doesn't last very long.
 
Praxas said:
Because no one wants to define something that could hurt them later. Both the Dem and Reps love gerrymandering, they just love it when it helps them and hate it when it doesn't. IMO gerrymandering is done to prevent third parties from being able to take foothold anywhere. From time to time an independent third party can get in, but it usually doesn't last very long.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, what I do not understand is how this as an affront to 1 person 1 vote, and how that gerrymandering do not represent the will of the people, in fact it undermines it. Yet both parties practice it, both want the wins at the Statehouse levels for that once per decade. And the hard line party base is fine with that.

And yes, it does prevent 3rd party voters from gaining representation.
 
JANFU said:
I can understand that, what I do not understand is how this as an affront to 1 person 1 vote, and how that gerrymandering do not represent the will of the people, in fact it undermines it. Yet both parties practice it, both want the wins at the Statehouse levels for that once per decade. And the hard line party base is fine with that.

And yes, it does prevent 3rd party voters from gaining representation.
Click to expand...

Third parties are powerfully disadvantaged by single member districts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom