Support NeoGAF

[ForsakenLotus]

Please give me reason to be optimistic Supreme Court. I get that some instances of gerrymandering might be through common sense clearly wrong but can't be legally proven, but some of what we have seen is just absurd (Wisconsin). Gerrymandering is meant to be representative of a growing and evolving country, and not a political tool to undermine what the voters actually want.

 

[BobTheFork]

Yep, this is what we always needed another D appointed justice for.

Totally fucked.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Since the court was already rigged by the GOP explicitly to protect their gerrymandering and voter suppression, we'll never really know.

Not really, if Kennedy and the 4 democrats team up on this one then that's 5 votes.

This case is aimed to give Kennedy what he asked for 13 years ago.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...jor-challenge-to-partisan-gerrymandering.html

In 2004, Justice Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion on a gerrymandering case that he might consider a challenge if there were “a workable standard” to decide when such tactics crossed a constitutional line. But he said he had not seen such a standard.

The challengers in the new case, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, say they have found a way to distinguish the effect of partisanship from the many other factors that influence how districts are drawn.​

Edit: the case where Kennedy mentioned that could be interesting reading. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZC.html Each of the 3 dissenters offered their own standard, so this could be a very interesting case from a legal perspective because even if Kennedy goes along with the theory there might be some trouble agreeing on the exact standard to use to determine what's allowed or not.

 

[Aztechnology]

I haven't been able to stop complaining about gerrymandering since I learned about it in 7th grade. I'll wish upon a damn star if I have to. I really hope the right thing is done. Because there are alot of entrenched Rep and Democrats who do not want this.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Tomorrow's the day. How long after the hearing does it typically take for a decision from the Supreme Court?

 

[Shauni]

I'm hoping for the best, but I kind of have a bad feeling on this one. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Tomorrow's the day. How long after the hearing does it typically take for a decision from the Supreme Court?

Many months.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Calling it now. It'll be ruled Constitutional by a Republican Supreme Court and thus this will be one more thing for Democrats to blame themselves for because they would have had a chance to actually make meaningful once-in-a-lifetime change if only they could have gotten Bernie nominated.

Spoiler

Fixed

 

[davepoobond]

if it were unconstitutional i feel like it would have already been overturned at some point before now.

 

[Unknown One]

We're going to get fucked aren't we?

 

[Ogodei]

Not really, if Kennedy and the 4 democrats team up on this one then that's 5 votes.

This case is aimed to give Kennedy what he asked for 13 years ago.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...jor-challenge-to-partisan-gerrymandering.html

In 2004, Justice Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion on a gerrymandering case that he might consider a challenge if there were “a workable standard” to decide when such tactics crossed a constitutional line. But he said he had not seen such a standard.

The challengers in the new case, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, say they have found a way to distinguish the effect of partisanship from the many other factors that influence how districts are drawn.​

Edit: the case where Kennedy mentioned that could be interesting reading. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZC.html Each of the 3 dissenters offered their own standard, so this could be a very interesting case from a legal perspective because even if Kennedy goes along with the theory there might be some trouble agreeing on the exact standard to use to determine what's allowed or not.

Could be a case where math saves the day, as you could prove mathematically that a more efficiently drawn district would also be more competitive.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Many months.

Dang. I had no idea.

I'm not hopeful on this one, either, but would love to be surprised.

 

[B-Dubs]

if it were unconstitutional i feel like it would have already been overturned at some point before now.

Kennedy wanted a workable standard, which is why it wasn't struck down before. This case was crafted specifically to give him everything he said he wanted the last time. So the question will likely be: does he like the standard presented to him?

 

[AuthenticM]

We're going to get fucked aren't we?

yes

 

[Zackat]

We are going to get screwed here.

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

Up to Kennedy pretty much. I'm fully expecting a huge pit in my stomach to open up at this and many more rulings to come when I see the 5-4 vote and think of all the people who didn't vote last year.

 

[Cipherr]

This is the one, guys. This decision will determine the fate of democracy in the USA.

We decided this last election as far as Im concerned. I know it brings down the mood, but we had our chance for fixing this and Net Neutrality, but instead decided to let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Escape Goat]

I’m already expecting the worst. Once again it’s up to Kennedy.

 

[Nappuccino]

Fucking can't take this. Jesus Christ. Wake me up when we have a fix for gerry mandering. (Here's hopeful that case in North Carolina helps).

 

[CrazyDude]

Many months.

But we'll get a general idea wear they stand during the hearings.

 

[Wilsongt]

In coming 5-4 siding with gerrymandering being legal.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

But we'll get a general idea wear they stand during the hearings.

Not necessarily. Oral arguments can sometimes be totally inconsistent with how final rulings go out.

 

[ThLunarian]

They didn't hear North Carolina's case on racial gerrymandering. That makes me think that they're going to uphold the constitutionality of gerrymandering. Dammit.

In North Carolina, the appellate decision required NC to redraw districts. So the fact that the Supreme Court didn't hear it is a positive sign

 

[Phased]

Supreme Court decisions can go either way despite makeup of the court.

Nobody expected Kennedy (who was nominated by Reagan) to vote in favor of striking down DOMA, or even to rule in favor of the tax subsidies in Obamacare with Roberts (Nominated by Bush) which basically kept it alive. The party affiliation of the President who nominated them doesn't necessarily sway their vote, as proof by those 2 landmark cases.

While they can certainly sway more conservative or liberal, they also have the capacity to surprise based on their own individual interpretation of the constitution.

 

[#sorrynotsorry]

Yup. You never really know. The nice thing is that they have nothing to lose. It's still partisan, but maybe not quite so much.

 

[L4DANathan]

I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.

This.

 

[Zubz]

Today was already a trainwreck. I don't want to see tomorrow rule Gerrymandering as anything but morally indefensible.

 

[JP_]

FiveThirtyEight had a good podcast episode about this: http://pca.st/fQ27

 

[Fugu]

Could be a case where math saves the day, as you could prove mathematically that a more efficiently drawn district would also be more competitive.

That doesn't really have any bearing on the constitutional argument, however. The issues here are that:

a) What constitutes a partisan redrawing of the map is substantively ambiguous in the absence of a specific constitutional requirement that districts be drawn as competitively as possible, and

b) Even if such a test exists it is as yet undecided whether a partisan redrawing of the map violates the constitution.

A cursory reading of Kennedy's decision last time around seems to suggest some support for the notion of declaring provably partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, but the jury is far from out. The bigger issue is the first one.

 

[Perfect Blue]

FiveThirtyEight had a good podcast episode about this: http://pca.st/fQ27

Scotusblog argument preview: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/argument-preview-justices-tackle-partisan-gerrymandering/

 

[Omadahl]

I know Obama liked to take the high road on a lot of stuff, but he should have just pushed Garland through when Congress was on break. He let America get screwed because of his ideals. The next Democratic president needs to act like a Republican and just tell the other side of the isle to get in line or get fucked.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

All you people making posts about how this is going to be 5-4 reiffirming partisan gerrymandering as constitution like being ignorant about this case, or what?

The history of this case, the arguments being presented, and whose on the court matter. This isn't some random case where the party of the bench sitters makes a prediction fairly easy.

I know Obama liked to take the high road on a lot of stuff, but he should have just pushed Garland through when Congress was on break. He let America get screwed because of his ideals. The next Democratic president needs to act like a Republican and just tell the other side of the isle to get in line or get fucked.

The Senate was never allowed to officially go on recess. He never had a chance to do this.

 

[Omadahl]

The Senate was never allowed to officially go on recess. He never had a chance to do this.

Ah. Well forget my complaint then. I still want an LBJ-level asshole Democrat.

 

[RedZaraki]

They'll probably rule that it's "Congress's responsibility to blah blah blah..."

Because if it's not explicitly in the constitution then fuck it.


It's really, really frustrating.

 

[whyamihere]

They'll probably rule that it's "Congress's responsibility to blah blah blah..."

Because if it's not explicitly in the constitution then fuck it.


It's really, really frustrating.

Nope. Sounds like Kennedy seems poised to join the liberals to strike down partisan gerrymandering, based on orals.

Kind of annoying to see a bunch of people who know nothing about the case decide this is going to be a 5-4 case. I get wanting to emotionally insulate oneself from disappointment, but it's frustrating when it's sort of clear which way Kennedy is blowing.

 

[Machina]

Watch the Republicans throw obscene amounts of influence at the right leaning court justices over this one

 

[whyamihere]

Watch the Republicans throw obscene amounts of influence at the right leaning court justices over this one

that's not how any of this works

 

[Machina]

that's not how any of this works

Sure it isn't. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with Citizens United for example...

 

[LegendofJoe]

I'm disappointed that Roberts appeared unable to see the forest for the trees. He's so concerned about adjudicating partisan squabbles that he doesn't see the extreme harm that partisan gerrymandering is doing to our body politic. It isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it's a question of whether we value fair democratic representation or not.

 

[whyamihere]

Sure it isn't. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with Citizens United for example...

????????

Do you understand the history of this case and Vieth or no?

 

[Suikoguy]

I'd argue there is a real chance of this getting rid of Partisan Gerrymandering.

I would not write this off based on what SC watchers are saying.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

That doesn't really have any bearing on the constitutional argument, however. The issues here are that:

a) What constitutes a partisan redrawing of the map is substantively ambiguous in the absence of a specific constitutional requirement that districts be drawn as competitively as possible, and

b) Even if such a test exists it is as yet undecided whether a partisan redrawing of the map violates the constitution.

A cursory reading of Kennedy's decision last time around seems to suggest some support for the notion of declaring provably partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, but the jury is far from out. The bigger issue is the first one.

It's actually pretty blindingly obvious: When the map purposely disenfranchises or dilutes the voting power of an area to benefit a particular party. For example, red states love to split up cities/urban areas and group them with vast, disjointed areas of rural land. The result is even if the cities have most of the population, they hold little actual voting power. That's how places like Texas can be red even if the population trends more blue.

On a national scale, the situation is even worse. Due to gerrymandering, Democrats can earn millions more votes, yet hold fewer seats in congress. Not to mention, twice the Gop has taken the presidency without winning the popular vote, thanks in part to the gerrymandered districts.

 

[BriGuy]

Well, if partisan gerrymandering does end up being hunky dory in the eyes of the law, the Democrats need to take it to odious extremes when the next census is performed in 2020. I'm talking heretofore undescribed geometric shapes. Swirls and whorls. Shotgun blast patterns.

I vastly prefer a fair system, but if that's off the table, permanently fucking over Republicans and their enablers will have to do.

 

[whyamihere]

I'd argue there is a real chance of this getting rid of Partisan Gerrymandering.

I would not write this off based on what SC watchers are saying.

@AriBerman
Just got out of Supreme Court gerrymandering case. Court divided but Kennedy could be leaning toward invalidating Wisconsin GOP maps

https://thinkprogress.org/there-app...ike-down-a-partisan-gerrymander-3ee62adc465c/

The good news for Smith, and for other opponents of partisan gerrymanders, is that there appear to be five votes to strike down Wisconsin’s maps. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court’s “swing” vote in this case, asked a number of critical questions of the lawyers defending the gerrymandered maps and literally no questions of Smith. At one point, he appeared to grow angry with an attorney defending the maps for not answering one of his questions.

Though it is up in the air how deeply the Court will cut into the practice of partisan gerrymandering, a smart gambler would bet on Wisconsin’s maps going down.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/supreme-court-gerrymandering-wisconsin-arguments-243401

Kennedy was cryptic about how he might rule in the case, but gave no sign that he has abandoned his view that extreme partisan gerrymandering might—at least in theory—violate the Constitution. Moments into the argument, he suggested that extraordinary efforts to pack one particular party into one district or break them up into several others, could violate the right to free-association.

"Suppose [the court] decides this is a First Amendment issue, not an equal-protection issue. Would that change the analysis?" Kennedy asked as the court debated the legality of the Wisconsin plan. A three-judge panel ruled that the GOP-led legislature tilted the table so sharply against Democrats that it ran afoul of the Constitution.

@mjs_DC
Just got out of SCOTUS gerrymandering case. There seem to be five votes to strike down Wisconsin’s map on First Amendment grounds.

 

[jaekeem]

YES

 

[Ahasverus]

I hope the judges sit back, reflect on what has lead to this mess these past years, and make the first step towards common sense ruling again.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Oh my fuck please give us some much needed good news SCOTUS!

Our country's future needs this.

 

[LegendofJoe]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gerrymanders-20171002-story.html

This is a decent summary of the questions that were asked. I was shocked that even Alito said that gerrymandering was distasteful.

Roberts though...smh

 

[JCHandsom]

I'm going to be so disappointed when the Court rules that partisan gerrymandering is legal.

I don't want you to be right

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Kennedy asked no questions for the Whitford side? Weird.