Current Events > USC rules against voters in Wisconsin gerrymandering case

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/392758-supreme-court-rules-against-wisconsin-democrats-in-key-gerrymandering-case

The court said the residents lacked standing to bring the case forward and remanded the case back down to the lower court to give the voters an opportunity to prove they were injured by the maps, which were drawn by Republican legislators.

Looks like gerrymandering will be around to stay until a few more conservative justices have "heart attacks."
---

Excellent
---

Fucking Trojans
---

Is this like the political Rose Bowl?
---

Were_Wyrm posted...

Fucking Trojans

came in to make this joke too
---

Americans lack standing against the politicians corruption??

Dont tell me the scotus isnt corrupt

Notice its worse under trump
---

Darkman124 posted...

Looks like gerrymandering will be around to stay until a few more conservative justices have "heart attacks."

The court also ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed they were unfairly put at a disadvantage by Democrats.

---

TomNook20 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Looks like gerrymandering will be around to stay until a few more conservative justices have "heart attacks."

The court also ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed they were unfairly put at a disadvantage by Democrats.

yes, however it is the conservative justices who wrote the majority opinion, and the liberal justices who dissented.
---

TomNook20 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Looks like gerrymandering will be around to stay until a few more conservative justices have "heart attacks."

The court also ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed they were unfairly put at a disadvantage by Democrats.

Fair. Gerrymandering still sucks.

EDIT:
Darkman124 posted...

yes, however it is the conservative justices who wrote the majority opinion, and the liberal justices who dissented.

Oops never mind. Looks like conservatives are willing to take a hit if it means keeping gerrymandering the standard.
---

I love how the whole argument for gerrymandering is that it "isn't fair" and needs to be rigged in one's favor
---

TomNook20 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Looks like gerrymandering will be around to stay until a few more conservative justices have "heart attacks."

The court also ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed they were unfairly put at a disadvantage by Democrats.

Maryland IIRC, is the only democratic-gerrymandered state. Meanwhile, conservative gerrymanders are practically in most red states in some shape or form. It's more beneficial for conservatives to vote pro-gerrymander.
---

The Maryland gerrymander provides democrats with an extra 1-2 seats, depending on whether you believe Caroll and Baltimore counties would really go right if you let them vote on their own (don't confuse Bmore county with Bmore city).

The main problem in Maryland isn't the ass-crazy looking thing that runs between MoCo and Baltimore, it's the snake that splits Frederick county up (cracking) with just enough MoCo/HoCo voters to dilute out that republican seat.
---

Even our Supreme Court has been compromised. Remember Citizens United? We got outright political hacks like Gorsuch and people like Clarence Thomas, whose wife is a lobbyist and was/is a consultant to The Heritage Foundation. Many if not all of our Court Justices take bribes, I mean "contributions" and "gifts" and attend "non-political" parties, gatherings, or conferences.

Don't care who does it. Gerrymandering needs to go.
---

If you actually took the time to read the decision, the decision was mostly unanimous and didn't decide on the merits of the case, it basically sent the case back to the original court to have better evidence presented.

Stupid decision (it's yet another 'kick the can down the road' opinion by the SCotUS), but honestly the case will probably be back in the Supreme Court again.
---

Darkman124 posted...

yes, however it is the conservative justices who wrote the majority opinion, and the liberal justices who dissented.

They voted 9-0 in this case.
---

bover_87 posted...

If you actually took the time to read the decision, the decision was mostly unanimous and didn't decide on the merits of the case, it basically sent the case back to the original court to have better evidence presented.

Stupid decision (it's yet another 'kick the can down the road' opinion by the SCotUS), but honestly the case will probably be back in the Supreme Court again.

roberts wrote the majority opinion.

kagan specifically wrote that the court needed to take up the responsibility of rendering a verdict on these cases, despite voting with the majority.

the verdict seems to be mostly for show. a liberal majority seems almost certain to have actually heard the case.

but yes you are correct: it was a kick the can down the road decision, which is functionally a win for the GOP. it could have influenced the 2018 midterms.
---

@Darkman124 posted...

bover_87 posted...

If you actually took the time to read the decision, the decision was mostly unanimous and didn't decide on the merits of the case, it basically sent the case back to the original court to have better evidence presented.

Stupid decision (it's yet another 'kick the can down the road' opinion by the SCotUS), but honestly the case will probably be back in the Supreme Court again.

roberts wrote the majority opinion.

kagan specifically wrote that the court needed to take up the responsibility of rendering a verdict on these cases, despite voting with the majority.

the verdict seems to be mostly for show. a liberal majority seems almost certain to have actually heard the case.

but yes you are correct: it was a kick the can down the road decision, which is functionally a win for the GOP. it could have influenced the 2018 midterms.

Yeah, IMO the opinion of the court strongly implies that at least a majority of the justices believe that the district court used the correct reasoning, but given the time it will take to complete the case this will help the GOP in the 2018 midterms.

I could actually see the state losing in the retrial and not appealing back to the Supreme Court just to avoid setting a national precedent.
---

same. a national precedent would break the GOP long-term esp as we are moving towards majority rule in the senate
---

Gerrymandering is actually obligatory, in certain cases, and it backfired when not-so-subtle racists were more than happy to comply.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/how-the-voting-rights-act-hurts-democrats-and-minorities/276893/

Another reason why proportional representation per seat + multiple representatives per seat (even within the same party) should be the new Electoral law of the land.

Range Voting of Candidates
http://rangevoting.org/

Shortest Split-Line Districting
http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

This would also help fix the power / voting distribution to representatives.
---

Just, you know, ditch the concepts of districts. Wyoming and Alaska seem to be doing okay with a single 'at large' representative, thus it's not a huge stretch to assume California will do okay with 53 "at large" representatives.