SCOTUS rules against democracy in Gerrymandering case!!!

[independentusa]

SCOTUS ruled that states can Gerrymander to their heart's content, stating that it is a political thing, not a legal thing. So how does this effect our so called democracy, it certainly ends the idea of one man one vote that seems essential to our democracy. Whether its Dems or GOP in control of the state's legislators, they can continue to set districts that even if they lose the total number of votes they can control who is in the state legislator, and thus who goes to Washington. And they can change things each 10 years to insure they keep such control. In some state the controlling party has received 45% of the total votes for seats in the state legislator, but through gerrymandering, got over 55% of the seats. That means in those states that your vote is meaningless in many gerrymandered districts. And there are simple ways of ending such political gerrymandering, but our parties do not wish to give up their positions of power just to bring back a better democracy. I think that perhaps it is time to make state political candidates go on the record vowing to end the practice as SCOTUS will not protect our right to have our votes count

 

[Obscurity]

There is no democracy here, even though the founders DID intend it to be so.

 

[Slartibartfast]

SCOTUS ruled that states can Gerrymander to their heart's content, stating that it is a political thing, not a legal thing. So how does this effect our so called democracy, it certainly ends the idea of one man one vote that seems essential to our democracy. Whether its Dems or GOP in control of the state's legislators, they can continue to set districts that even if they lose the total number of votes they can control who is in the state legislator, and thus who goes to Washington. And they can change things each 10 years to insure they keep such control. In some state the controlling party has received 45% of the total votes for seats in the state legislator, but through gerrymandering, got over 55% of the seats. That means in those states that your vote is meaningless in many gerrymandered districts. And there are simple ways of ending such political gerrymandering, but our parties do not wish to give up their positions of power just to bring back a better democracy. I think that perhaps it is time to make state political candidates go on the record vowing to end the practice as SCOTUS will not protect our right to have our votes count

This is stupid. Ultimately neither the Dems nor the GOP should be doing this, but who watches the watchers in this case? It can't be the voters since they are the ones being disenfranchised.

 

[HumblePi]

It's up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to pass a bill making gerrymandering illegal. Then let the state's sue Congress if they wish to proceed with this unfair practice. It could possibly put a 'stay' into effect to prohibit gerrymandering until the courts get to hear arguments.

 

[Praxas]

It's up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to pass a bill making gerrymandering illegal. Then let the state's sue Congress if they wish to proceed with this unfair practice. It could possibly put a 'stay' into effect to prohibit gerrymandering until the courts get to hear arguments.

Which is very unlikely to happen because both parties do it.

 

[HumblePi]

Which is very unlikely to happen because both parties do it.

Exactly, so things have to be changed at the state level and it all depends which party is in the majority.

 

[trixare4kids]

5-4 decision, conservative majority. Elections have consequences.

The decision....
“Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Court’s other four conservatives, wrote in the 5-4 Rucho v. Common Cause decision. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

 

[apdst]

There is no democracy here, even though the founders DID intend it to be so.

The Founders never mentioned democracy a single time in The Constitution.

 

[apdst]

It's up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to pass a bill making gerrymandering illegal. Then let the state's sue Congress if they wish to proceed with this unfair practice. It could possibly put a 'stay' into effect to prohibit gerrymandering until the courts get to hear arguments.

Yeah, that damn 10th Amendment stops that in it's tracks.

 

[Obscurity]

The Founders never mentioned democracy a single time in The Constitution.

Read the intent of the founders. We the people have the authority to change this government, in fitting with social changes.

Just because the word isnt used doesn't mean it wasnt intended.

 

[HumblePi]

5-4 decision, conservative majority. Elections have consequences.

The decision....
“Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Court’s other four conservatives, wrote in the 5-4 Rucho v. Common Cause decision. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

Keep remembering what you said as the right continues to complain about the impeachment investigation process.

 

[HumblePi]

The Founders never mentioned democracy a single time in The Constitution.

That's because the Founding Fathers formed a republic not a democracy. The leaders of two of the three branches of our government are indeed elected in democratic elections. However, those leaders are bound by the constitutional limits, so their power has definite limits. That is the definition of a democratic republic.

 

[trixare4kids]

Keep remembering what you said as the right continues to complain about the impeachment investigation process.

You mean Schiff's closed door, Stalinist secret proceedings?
Yeah, I think I will do just that. Thanks!

Thanks changing the thread topic to a whataboutism.

 

[What if...?]

5-4 decision, conservative majority. Elections have consequences.

The decision....
“Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Court’s other four conservatives, wrote in the 5-4 Rucho v. Common Cause decision. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

Ok.

So you admit that in order to win politicians must rig the game.

I will withhold my vote from a democrat that engages in gerrymandering.

Are you prepared to do the same?

Or will you vote for them because power is more important to you than true representative democracy?

 

[pragmatic]

It's up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to pass a bill making gerrymandering illegal. Then let the state's sue Congress if they wish to proceed with this unfair practice. It could possibly put a 'stay' into effect to prohibit gerrymandering until the courts get to hear arguments.

And that is what Roberts explicitly stated in the majority decision. It is not a Constitutional issue.

Not a radical conclusion.

 

[What if...?]

The Founders never mentioned democracy a single time in The Constitution.

But they did include popular voting for political office

Which is the basic premise of democracy.

It is the root of the word itself, after all.

Rule of the people.

Of course conservatives feel more secure when told what to do and not do. How to behave.

Never have understood it, but it is the simple truth. Even though they tend to cry "liberty!" a lot, they really mean we are perfectly free to live as we're told. Or suffer the consequences.

 

[trixare4kids]

Ok.

So you admit that in order to win politicians must rig the game.

I will withhold my vote from a democrat that engages in gerrymandering.

Are you prepared to do the same?

Or will you vote for them because power is more important to you than true representative democracy?

I have nothing to do with the SC decision.
I think they made the right one though. I don't see the decision as permitting politicians to rig the game.
I'll vote for whom I believe is the best candidate. Thanks.
The republic is not a democracy.

 

[What if...?]

You mean Schiff's closed door, Stalinist secret proceedings?
Yeah, I think I will do just that. Thanks!

Thanks changing the thread topic to a whataboutism.

So. There are republicans in these committees. Attending these hearings.

Any citations of those republicans complaining that they are being excluded or silenced?

(I haven't seen any posts here about it. May have missed them. So please inform me if I have)

 

[Moderate Right]

SCOTUS ruled that states can Gerrymander to their heart's content, stating that it is a political thing, not a legal thing. So how does this effect our so called democracy, it certainly ends the idea of one man one vote that seems essential to our democracy. Whether its Dems or GOP in control of the state's legislators, they can continue to set districts that even if they lose the total number of votes they can control who is in the state legislator, and thus who goes to Washington. And they can change things each 10 years to insure they keep such control. In some state the controlling party has received 45% of the total votes for seats in the state legislator, but through gerrymandering, got over 55% of the seats. That means in those states that your vote is meaningless in many gerrymandered districts. And there are simple ways of ending such political gerrymandering, but our parties do not wish to give up their positions of power just to bring back a better democracy. I think that perhaps it is time to make state political candidates go on the record vowing to end the practice as SCOTUS will not protect our right to have our votes count

It is virtually impossible to gerrymander unless you won in the first place. Therefore, it is a lame argument to say that gerrymandering alters election results to any high degree. If you won the first time around it can't really be proven that that same side wouldn't have won again without gerrymandering. Bottom line, elections are run by the states, therefore federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over a state process.

 

[Moderate Right]

This is stupid. Ultimately neither the Dems nor the GOP should be doing this, but who watches the watchers in this case? It can't be the voters since they are the ones being disenfranchised.

But this is the way with the left. They think courts should decide cases based on feelings. The Supreme Court merely said they don't have jurisdiction over a state process.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But this is the way with the left. They think courts should decide cases based on feelings. The Supreme Court merely said they don't have jurisdiction over a state process.

Political machines tend to be bad news for voters, no matter the party.

 

[Napoleon]

It is virtually impossible to gerrymander unless you won in the first place. Therefore, it is a lame argument to say that gerrymandering alters election results to any high degree. If you won the first time around it can't really be proven that that same side wouldn't have won again without gerrymandering. Bottom line, elections are run by the states, therefore federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over a state process.

Which might be a reasonable argument if gerrymandering only impacted State offices, but it doesn’t. It also influences the outcome of Federal elections. And politicians obviously don’t share your confidence in their electability or they wouldn’t be gerrymandering in the first place.

 

[Moderate Right]

Read the intent of the founders. We the people have the authority to change this government, in fitting with social changes.

Just because the word isnt used doesn't mean it wasnt intended.

Ummmmmmmmm. There are a lot of restrictions, rules, etc for changing the government, in fitting with social changes. That's why there have been several amendments to the constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to amend the constitution due to their feelings.

 

[Perotista]

SCOTUS ruled that states can Gerrymander to their heart's content, stating that it is a political thing, not a legal thing. So how does this effect our so called democracy, it certainly ends the idea of one man one vote that seems essential to our democracy. Whether its Dems or GOP in control of the state's legislators, they can continue to set districts that even if they lose the total number of votes they can control who is in the state legislator, and thus who goes to Washington. And they can change things each 10 years to insure they keep such control. In some state the controlling party has received 45% of the total votes for seats in the state legislator, but through gerrymandering, got over 55% of the seats. That means in those states that your vote is meaningless in many gerrymandered districts. And there are simple ways of ending such political gerrymandering, but our parties do not wish to give up their positions of power just to bring back a better democracy. I think that perhaps it is time to make state political candidates go on the record vowing to end the practice as SCOTUS will not protect our right to have our votes count

Whether or not we agree with the ruling, the Constitution left it to the state legislatures. Now the state courts can still overturn gerrymandering, make the legislatures draw new district if they've have a mind to. There's no doubt the Democrats gerrymandered Illinois and New York to the hilt last time while the GOP did the same in Texas and North Carolina. Now there is a sentence in the Constitution that states, "Congress may at anytime by law make or alter such regulations..." This falls under Article I, section 4 which gives the state legislatures the power to set the time, places and manner of elections. Whether the census and redistricting fall under this article and section is up to the SCOTUS to decide which apparently they have.

I'm no constitutional scholar, far from it. But if I read this correctly, congress could outlaw gerrymandering if it so desired. But political party strength is all important to both parties, one can bet the party that controls the most state legislatures sure as heck wouldn't give that political advantage away. Power or political advantage for either party seems to over ride democracy when it comes to gerrymandering.

Or as someone once put it, I agree with whomever that was stated, "Gerrymandering is the act of representatives choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their representatives." This is the ultimate example of the good of the political party over riding the good for the nation, the state and democracy.

 

[trixare4kids]

So. There are republicans in these committees. Attending these hearings.

Any citations of those republicans complaining that they are being excluded or silenced?

(I haven't seen any posts here about it. May have missed them. So please inform me if I have)

I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions.
Why don't you like the SC who interprets Constitutional law to the best of their abilities?
It's a done deal... time to move on.