Supreme Court upholds lower court redistricting decision in PA / NC

[Seattle Husker]

Lot's of angles on this one. The GOP challenged their state court rulings to the SCOTUS in hopes of keeping their severely gerrymandered maps in place. SCOTUS didn't agree, at least if was 6-3 against the GOP.

Supreme Court denies GOP requests to halt new maps in North Carolina, Pennsylvania

Which angle do you prefer?
1. A boon for states rights?
2. Need another Conservative on the court to replace a liberal Justice?
3. Gerrymandering is the work of the devil so this is a blow for all that is good and holy.
4. Who gives a %$&@!!! (@Run Pincher 's addition)

 

[Run Pincher]

Who gives a %$&@!!!

 

[Seattle Husker]

Who gives a %$&@!!!

That wasn't an option but since I like you so much I added it.

 

[mb227]

It was an Application for a Stay, not a ruling on the merits. I note, however, that Kavanaugh raises the issue of the federal courts historically avoiding issues this close to a national election cycle.

For those so interested, since The Hill will never give it to you nor the people who link to The Hill...

Kavanaugh and Alito's Opinion on the Order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a455_5if6.pdf

 

[Mr. Deez]

1. A boon for states rights?

Yes.

Even if I might like the political outcome of them, these cases are ********. They're ultimately asking federal courts to make themselves the highest authority on matters of state law. That isn't how it's supposed to work. I'm not saying I agree with the North Carolina or Pennsylvania supreme courts. They very well may be getting it wrong, but so long as they're applying state laws, it's not the place of federal courts to come in and override them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes.

Even if I might like the political outcome of them, these cases are ********. They're ultimately asking federal courts to make themselves the highest authority on matters of state law. That isn't how it's supposed to work. I'm not saying I agree with the North Carolina or Pennsylvania supreme courts. They very well may be getting it wrong, but so long as they're applying state laws, it's not the place of federal courts to come in and override them.

I don't know the full details of these state court decision but I think trusting redistricting to a partisan body is inviting corrupt behavior. As I understand it, the NC decision essentially said if you can't come to a bi-partisan agreement by X date then the decision will go to an independent expert. They didn't agree so some smarty pants from Stanford came up with a district map that was more fair. In PA, the partisan Supreme Court overruled the partisan Congress.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Notice that states with leftist run state supreme courts like NY or Maryland never overrule the Democrat designed re-districting, even in cases like NY which went to I believe what is a 22-4 Democrat advantage.

Going forward, the state's GOP's will need to focus on getting their people onto the state's Supreme Court, and the Democrat's off, as otherwise, especially in PA, the state is ruled by decree via their state Supreme Court.

What gerrymandering does is space out your voters so you win lots of seats with 55% of the vote, instead of fewer seats with 65% of the vote.

What will be ironic is that with the creation of so many should be ~55% democrat seats, if Depends low 30's approval rating sinks even these seats down to being won by a Republican, due to huge turnout on the R side, huge Independent votes, and low D turnout.

Be a hoot if the 22 election is even more of a bloodbath for the Democrat party via their own gerrymandering.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know the full details of these state court decision but I think trusting redistricting to a partisan body is inviting corrupt behavior. As I understand it, the NC decision essentially said if you can't come to a bi-partisan agreement by X date then the decision will go to an independent expert. They didn't agree so some smarty pants from Stanford came up with a district map that was more fair. In PA, the partisan Supreme Court overruled the partisan Congress.

I would very likely disagree with both court's decisions on the merits. However, I can't claim to respect the Constitution as it's written and the federalist system and then endorse usurping state court authority to interpret state laws. To put it differently, they have a right to be wrong.

And think about the implications of something like this. If they can do it on this, you could see federal courts finding backdoor ways to override state education, criminal, and tax laws. This is an area in which the Right needs to be careful what it wishes for.