Legal scholars, help: A lawless Supreme Court...

@no1marauder said
The truth of the matter is that progressives have fought against gerrymandering while right wingers have used it to their advantage in numerous States and a conservative court declared themselves powerless to do anything about it even while conceding it was a violation of rights.

It's asking a lot of Democrats in blue States to draw fair, impartial maps while Republica ...[text shortened]... nd keep getting hit low to Red Guy's advantage or should he retaliate and hit low to even things up?

LOL…you live in a special world dont you?

@shavixmir said
Unbelievable.

I’d sack the whole supreme court and just install 9 new members on a 10 year basis.

And this constant gerrymandering is ridiculous. Same as filibustering.

The US system is so broke it’s mad.

We got the best government that money can buy.

@no1marauder said
This court would probably find the Freedmen's Bureau unconstitutional so don't get your hopes up.

Is there historical precedent for the Supreme Court to make such impactful rulings with nary an explanation?

I've found something resembling a rationale, but is this accurate? 9 months is considered "the eve of an election".

Stays are supposed to be an “extraordinary” remedy meant for extraordinary cases — where three different things are true: First, the party seeking a stay must be likely to win their appeal. Second, it must be the case that not freezing the lower-court ruling while it is appealed would cause the appealing party “irreparable harm,” that is, harm that a successful appeal could not adequately remedy. And third, the public interest — to both the parties and society at large — must be served by such relief. What this test hopefully drives home is that stays are (supposed to be) rarely granted, and are (supposed to be) limited to cases where lower courts didn’t just err, but erred in ways that cause immediate, harmful effects to the party that lost.

We can’t know how a majority of the Justices applied these factors to the Alabama cases. Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) wrote to explain his rationale. But what he wrote was not exactly reassuring. First, Kavanaugh suggested that the normal rules for stays don’t apply because these are election cases, and election cases are covered by a different rule known as the “Purcell principle” (also articulated on the shadow docket) that federal courts should not block election rules on the eve of elections. Thus, to Kavanaugh, the burden was on the plaintiffs to show that “the underlying merits are entirely clearcut” in their favor in order to win in the district court. And by his reasoning, the fact that there is even some question on the merits of the case justifies freezing the district courts’ rulings. But there’s one critical problem with this line of thinking: the election in Alabama is still nine months away. Even the primaries are in late May. It’s hard to see how district court rulings in January even implicate that (contestable) principle, unless the court has silently expanded it to swallow all election cases.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/the-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-rulings-keep-getting-worse.html

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL…you live in a special world dont you?

The real one, not the right wing fantasy world you have talked yourself into.

@quackquack said
The New York Times pointed out that outlandish gerrymandering (their view) is being done by Democrats in states like New York so to be accurate, it isn't just a tool used by Republicans.
I'm not sure how to fix it but one certainly could argue that one of seven Congressional districts being majority black is Ok in a state that has 27% black people. Just on its face, do ...[text shortened]... goal of districting should be solely to make minority groups in the majority in different districts?

Why must y'all ALWAYS go on with WHATABOUTISM ?
The case that was ruled on was ALABAMA, The RNC DID NOT CHALLENGE NY's map...
................hello?.................hello?

@jimm619 said
Why must y'all ALWAYS go on with WHATABOUTISM ?
The case that was ruled on was ALABAMA, The RNC DID NOT CHALLENGE NY's map...
................hello?.................hello?

Well, NY Republicans have filed a lawsuit against NY's new redistricting maps: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2022/02/03/republicans-lay-groundwork-for-potential-legal-challenge-to-redistricting

@no1marauder said
Well, NY Republicans have filed a lawsuit against NY's new redistricting maps: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2022/02/03/republicans-lay-groundwork-for-potential-legal-challenge-to-redistricting

Fair enough, I was unaware of that.
Never the less, the SCOTUS ruling was
concerning ALABAMA.

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL…you live in a special world dont you?

California has a non-partisan, independent
commission that establishes voting districts.

@jimm619 said
Why must y'all ALWAYS go on with WHATABOUTISM ?
The case that was ruled on was ALABAMA, The RNC DID NOT CHALLENGE NY's map...
................hello?.................hello?

You can scream all you want but any person who wants to fairly discuss a topic would acknowledge that gerrymandering right now is problem a of the United States in regions controlled by both parties.

@quackquack said
You can scream all you want but any person who wants to fairly discuss a topic would acknowledge that gerrymandering right now is problem a of the United States in regions controlled by both parties.

Yes, I'll agree with that statement.

@quackquack said
You can scream all you want but any person who wants to fairly discuss a topic would acknowledge that gerrymandering right now is problem a of the United States in regions controlled by both parties.

The problem is there are anti-gerrymandering laws on the books, both federally and state-level laws, which were completely ignored by SCOTUS. The rationale for favoring gerrymandering by issuing a stay in this case was lawless. They only explain that it was too close to an election, which is 9 months away, even though there's no legal basis for saying that. Is 10 months also too close? What about 11 months?

There are many redistricting lawsuits making their way through the courts right now, including the one you mention in New York. I imagine all of them will be postponed until after the election based on similar logic?

If this reasoning stands, there's no legal way to fix gerrymandering.

@wildgrass said
The problem is there are anti-gerrymandering laws on the books, both federally and state-level laws, which were completely ignored by SCOTUS. The rationale for favoring gerrymandering by issuing a stay in this case was lawless. They only explain that it was too close to an election, which is 9 months away, even though there's no legal basis for saying that. Is 10 months als ...[text shortened]... ion based on similar logic?

If this reasoning stands, there's no legal way to fix gerrymandering.

The issue is here is how districts should be formed. Alabama has seven districts and is 27% black. The current plan has (only) one district that is majority black. The plaintiffs felt there should should be more than one. The Supreme Court thought that one isn't shocking and want rushing to make a decision.
Unless we only focus on race many times blocks that are less than 50% will not have majorities in multiple districts and this does not seem unfair. There are any infinite number of minority subgroups in our culture perhaps the focus on race is ridiculous.

@quackquack said
You can scream all you want but any person who wants to fairly discuss a topic would acknowledge that gerrymandering right now is problem a of the United States in regions controlled by both parties.

And "there are fine people on both sides."

@quackquack said
The issue is here is how districts should be formed. Alabama has seven districts and is 27% black. The current plan has (only) one district that is majority black. The plaintiffs felt there should should be more than one. The Supreme Court thought that one isn't shocking and want rushing to make a decision.
Unless we only focus on race many times blocks that are les ...[text shortened]... re any infinite number of minority subgroups in our culture perhaps the focus on race is ridiculous.

As "ridiculous" as you might think it is, the Voting Rights Act plainly forbids the drawing of legislative lines that dilute minority representation in States, like Alabama, with a long history of discrimination against blacks.