Mitch McConnell has inflicted vast damage on our democracy but never more so than when he stonewalled the Garland nomination.
3
Alito is spot-on. The Court has no purview over the "motivation" behind an otherwise completely lawful exercise of executive authority. This is a shameful decision.
2
qerrmanding should be illegal the supream court just showed and proved they will vote ideology and in favor of Republicans the court no longer means anything to me. allowing one party to seize control against the will of the majority its official we are a third world authority regime elections now mean nothing
3
There are times when it does not matter whether a majority or a minority of people have the commanding ruling voice. If the ruling voice is indecent and immoral, selfish and sadistic....then the ruling few or the many......are totally wrong.
What's the difference between a Christian and an atheist.....and the difference between separation of church and state?
Blessed be those that believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
I find it interesting how their decision was so gender-informed.
1
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
The Supreme Court decision on Gerrymandering violates the first clause of this article.
2
On the question of gerrymandering, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided on the conservative majority's personal, biased strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
As for the gerrymandering issue, they argue the legal ramifications and obfuscate the issue with agonizingly legal wording machinations until it fits their reasoning and then they write their opinion all the while knowing the the process they condone is unconstitutional. You have to think Alito, at least, knows this.
2
Democracy in North Carolina dead, and there is no realistic path left to rectify the gerrymandering bias established by the 2010 redistricting. With near perfect gerrymandering that controls not only the makeup of US congressional delegation, but also the makeup of the NC General Assembly, it is nearly certain that the GOP will be in charge of redistricting in 2020. With the blessing of the US Supreme court, the ruling party has a license to practice partisan Gerrymandering to the nth degree. May unbiased representative government rest in peace.
4
“But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority.” Chief Justice John Roberts.
How is it that the constitution is referred to when it is convenient to a political position? How could the framers of the constitution know about computers that can be programed to give a desired result? Hence claiming there is no constitutional directive is faulty by expecting an 18th century mind to know 20th century inventions. If the same reasoning is to be applied to the second amendment. How could the muzzle loaders have any inkling that there would be a weapon that could fire numerous rounds per minute? Thus automatic weapons are not described in the constitution. So is this the reason why the courts will not rule on the weapons of war are allowed on the streets of our country? But at one time "Tommy Guns" were outlawed becaues of the inherant power to fire rounds. These weapons are not described in the constitution so there should be no reason for the courts to make a decision but they did.
4
What really happened is that the Republican justices found that it is perfectly constitutional for Republican politicians to deny Democratic voters their constitutional voting rights.
This is a Republican Supreme Court whose decisions are framed by partisan desires, not constitutional realities.
6
According to the SCOTUS 5 to 4 ruling, free and fair elections are unconstitutional. American democracy has already suffered enough under gerrymandering but now thanks to the wisdom of the SCOTUS there will be free reign in carving out voting districts for political gain without State intervention…..we are no longer in a democracy.
4
Why is Ross not being held to account for his perjury?
7
John Roberts, like Donald Trump, has nothing else in mind than his own self and his own reputation. He has no principles and he's got a bunch of men, several of them women abusers, whose principles, if they have any, are perverse. This is nothing but an effort to appear to be non-partisan while actually following the Trump/Republican line.
The complete inability to even consider the perverse motives, which are covered up with lies, of the Republicans in both cases is really scary. Any sense that the Supreme Court might be able to distinguish right from wrong is forever gone.
2
To NYT, incomprehensible why do you present this as a win for Republicans.... it's a win for the constitution. Liberals would have the courts make decisions based on liberal POV, rather than legal terms / arguments. The United Staters is a constitutional Republic bound by the Constitution and precedent based on rulings informed by the Constitution.
3
Shortly after his appointment, I heard Justice Roberts speak at a private "insider" gathering in Washington. It was assumed that he might be more open and honest than in a more public gathering. Wrong! Many of us, including myself, sensed that he was far too smooth and was holding a lot back despite his well-rehearsed "open" public demeanor. Sadly, we were right. Rather than being a more impartial conservative (does that exist?), he was masking his hard right sympathies, whichhave again been revealed in yesterday's ruling. He really had to bend the law into pretzels to clear gerrymandering so completely!
What this means is that Democrats everywhere, instead of having a steep hill to climb, must now scale alpine cliffs. There are no other options. We must turn out in droves or lose America to its worst "leaders." We can't count on impartial courts any longer; they are now packed with Trump sympathizers. Democrats have to unite as one party and sort out our differences later, when we have the power to do so. We must overwhelm the system or watch the real America die in the hard right's "little hands" and narrow minds.
3
SCOTUS says gerrymandering is okay. The only way to fight this is for blue state to gerrymander better than red states so that there is consensus to eliminate it by a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately the US will probably fracture into something similar to what USSR now looks like. RIP America.
2
What a gutless abdication of reposnsibility. In the last gerrymandering case Roberts complained that the main problem was that there was no usable/reasonable standard for the court to apply. Now, after being presented with such a clear standard, he says that the question beyond the federal courts' jurisdiction. Talk about moving back the goal posts! What baloney!
3
Just more pathetic proof that thanks to the gang of five; the fix is in; and will be for years to come. Want to subvert democracy by constantly gerrymandering the political map? By all means feel free to do so! REALLY?! If that does not prove how political SCOTUS has now become; nothing will. As for the laughable lies over the stinking census; it was so ridiculous even Roberts had to tell the G.O.P. to go back to the drawing board and try again. Not strike it down for good; which should have been the case; but "try again." If this is what Democracy looks like in the U.S. in 2019; Forget About It. You are truly a nation sinking into the abyss of a mindless right wing dictatorship where if the rules do not work for the minority; they simply change the rules until it does. I can only imagine Jefferson, Adams, Washington and company; and the generations that have followed; must be spinning in their graves over this latest assault on everything your nation is "Supposed" to stand for. Nice knowing you America; R.I.P.!
3
The real question on gerrymandering was not to ask the Justices to figure out how to allocate political power but to ask if that allocation was just? And, if not, require that it be so.
No one goes go to the Supreme Court to get an algorithm, they go to get Justice.
They apparently framed the question to use an answer they already had prepared.
So, the Courts are not the proper venue for deciding political decisions.
I guess that's why Justice Roberts voted to overrule the political decision of Congress to extend the Voting Rights Act.
Obviously, Justice Roberts' mind is not a victim of the hobgoblin of consistency.
11
Chief Justice Roberts by siding with the liberal judges on the census question saved the Supreme Court credibility which is already low. The four conservative justice basically accepted the lies of Secretary Ross as justifications for adding a question about citizenship in the census. This show how low those conservative judges are willing to go in protecting and giving the upper hands to the Republican Party against the Democratic Party.
3
The Supreme Court has no competence to decide when political actions result in injustice? What the bejesus is the separation of powers about? And what is it in the Constitution that says Supreme Court decisions should be “politically neutral?”
Justice Roberts is himself playing politics. There’s nothing politically neutral about the decision regarding gerrymandering and the ‘gift’ to ‘the other side’ of at least temporarily eliminating the citizenship question does not somehow ‘neutralize’ the Court itself.
Shameful.
15
@rjon it's called a "bait and switch." Roberts threw a crumb to the Left while letting one of our greatest political evils remain in place.
2
@rjon The question is not whether it is “just” or “injust,” the question is whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.
1
"The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, he said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments."
If five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot come up with a solution now to the concrete problem of "politics playing an (overwhelming) role in drawing election districts," how do they expect that the drafters of the Constitution to have anticipated such a specific problem and created a solution which these five Justices themselves are obviously unable to accomplish within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution were not omniscient.
2
The Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the Democrats and the American electoral system, then threw the Democrats a bone by postponing the decision to allow citizenship as a question on the 2020 census. By leaving it up to the politicians to decide whether gerrymandering is appropriate, they leave no check on the setting of electoral districts, which opens the season to no end of mischief. When the highest court in the land turns political, we have reached the point of total saturation with corruption of the American society. It will take a paradigm shift in human thought to right the ship.
However, in the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
5
The partisan vote by John Roberts defies the US Constitution;
The US Constitution was written not only for ALL those who
reside in the United States of America...for ALL those who reside in the United States of American who are NOT ELIGIBLE
to vote.
Case in point at this time: Justice is not being served for all
those who are now detained in substandard REFUGE status
in Texas.
Justice must be served for all those who want refuge and who
want citizenship...and this is why the approval by Roberts is
wrong....We are witnessing the reversal of the intent of the
writers of the US Constitution by not counting those who
are not being counted in a census report....
The vote by the Robert's court ...in my view defies the intent
of the right to include those who wish to become citizens and
who need to be counted.
3
John Roberts says, "Judges, he said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments."
Then why is Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison hailed as such a landmark achievement?
“By asserting the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional … [Marshall made] a strong statement to maintain the status of the Supreme Court as the head of a coequal branch of government… Marshall claimed for the court a paramount position as interpreter of the Constitution.”
“… the court has claimed and exercised the power of judicial review through most of U.S. history—and, as Judge Learned Hand noted… the country is used to it by now. Moreover, the principle fits well with the government’s commitment to checks and balances.”
(https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison)
10
It's time for our law to be changed so that representatives are elected based only on population in each state, and not on the home address of their constituents.
6
It strikes me that these decisions give the Democrats an opportunity to motivate voters to turn out for each and every election each and every year--- particularly in the so-called "off years" where "inconsequential" elections of state legislators take place.
3
Citizens United, Shelby, and now Rucho, the GOP trifecta, giving the final green light to turn the US into an undemocratic oligarchy. Putin and the GOP (once again) are perfectly aligned. When Reagan said gov’t is the problem, he was laying the foundation
16
@Gary Shaffer. The U.S. has always been an undemocratic oligarchy, there was merely a short period between 1946 and 1981 when we pretended otherwise.
5
It bears mention that Mitch McConnell's suppression of the Merrick Garland nomination was its own form of gerrymandering.
30
Justice Alito and Thomas need to have their heads examined. So it does not matter the reason why an agency would want to include a citizenship question without examining the harm it would cause? These men need to retire and allow more contemporaneous citizens to serve as justices.
4
@Wayne But please not before we have a Democrat in the White House! I shudder to think what the current resident would do with two more appointments to the Court.
1
Why worry about the Russians interfering with the outcome of our elections when we have the Supreme Court doing such a fine job.
29
It bears mention that Mitch McConnell's suppression of the Merrick Garland nomination was its own form of gerrymandering the Supreme Court itself.
5
It’s all about the numbers...winning the war with fake arithmetic.
We can thank the Federal Society et al & their billionaire
libertarian backers for the whittling away of representative democracy.
Gerrymandering, like patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. The temporary hold on the census question is a small reprieve.
12
Somewhere in that graveyard sent aside for bad Supreme Court Chief Justices, Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame, is spinning less rapidly, know that history will probably be sending another Chief Justice to join those who have inflicted damages on American democracy. And perhaps Taney will be relieved knowing that he may no longer be at the bottom of the graveyard.
14
@Bruce McLin: Add the Citizens United decision as well. Money wins in politics.
4
If Gerrymandering can't be fixed in the courts then it must be fixed in the state legislatures. But that is at best slow, uneven and probably won't happen at all in many states.
I guess the US is destined to remain a banana republic where a lot of people's votes don't count and only money really talks. We should stop pretending that it is a democracy and just call it the oligarchy that it actually is.
16
This could have been worse. Had they ruled, you can bet they would have sided on allowing Gerrymandering. Both sides have been guilty of Gerrymandering although the Republicans have turned it into an art form. As usual, the dems need to quit fighting fair. If and when they gain three branches of power, this and the electoral college have got to go. For those who still think the Constitution is a judicious document you need to research Madison and Elbridge Gerry. As with most things American, black disenfranchisement is at the heart of these decisions.
8
"...courts lack the authority and competence to decide when politics has played too large a role in redistricting.. There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments.” An article in last year's Scientific American (I forget which month) showed that computer programs can now mathematically discern whether politics or randomness were the key. But the law has always trailed (hundreds of years) behind science. Which is why, despite science, we are doomed.
13
(Whoops hit the send button to soon. let me try that again)
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.
I really don’t quite get the chief Justices’ reasoning on this issue considering the fact that in the 1962 decision of Baker V. Carr the supreme court ruled that the judiciary could address issues such as boundaries between electoral districts. This case lead to Reynolds V Simms from 64. Where Jefferson Country Alabama voters won their case arguing that Birmingham contain 41 times as many eligible voters as they and this lack of proportionality prevented them (on the state level) from effectively participating in a republican form of government.
This decision was famous for articulating the principle of “one person one vote”. Chief justice Warren reminded states that voting rights are based not on territory but on population hinting that some of the lines might have been drawn with the ulterior motive of benefiting certain interest. Eventually all of this lead to Westberry V Sanders that applied the same principles to federal congressional districts.
It seems that chief justice Roberts and the other conservatives on the court have completely ignored precedent.
18
The activist judges know exactly what they're doing, just as Tawney did back in his day.
5
Conservatives have put their noses to the grindstone and played the long game in relation to the appointment of federal judges and selecting the right cases to bring forward.
The Federalist Society and various right wing groups have had a laser focus on keeping the country in the eighteenth century from a legal perspective. Imagine all of the issues that are assumed to have been resolved that will now be re-examined.
It is our own fault. We, as a people do not participate as we should, our representatives pass our issues on to state and federal executives, and we wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what the "Founders" intended about issues they could have never conceived.
We need to vote, insist that our representatives legislate, and look forward for the benefit of the majority rather than backward for the benefit of the billionaires that dominate our corrupt political process.
We will be unable to address campaign finance, gerrymandering, immigration, huge income disparities, or the environment by leaving things up the conservatives and their judges.
We are headed back to the eighteenth century where "them whats got, gets".
26
Like the Soviet Union its time to break up the US into less corrupt pieces.
Our Supreme court has been stolen by Mitch McConnell along with all the seats he slow walked to steal them from the Democrats.
The great experiment is over. The corruption money brings to our politics is to strong.
13
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.
I really don’t quite get the chief Justices reasoning on this issue Considering the fact that in the 1962 decision of Baker V. Carr the supreme court ruled that the judiciary could address issues such as boundaries between electoral districts.
This case lead to Reynolds VE symptoms from 64. Where Jefferson county Alabama voters won their case arguing that Birmingham contain 41 times as many eligible voters is there and this lack of proportionality prevented them on the state level from affectively participating in a republican form of government. This decision was famous for a chicken wing the principle of one person one vote. Chief justice Warren reminded states that voting rights are based not on territory but on population hinting that some of the lines might’ve been drawn with the hotel your motive of benefiting certain interest
Eventually all of this lead to Westberry V Sanders that applied the same principles to federal congressional districts.
It seems the chief justice Roberts and the other conservatives on the cord have completely ignored any past presidents but I don’t I don’t know
7
The gerrymandering decision is calamitous for our democracy. In time, this decision along with Bush v. Gore, Shelby v. Holder and Citizens United v. FEC will be shown to have sidelined democracy for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy and the GOP. And with an administration that welcomes foreign interference in our elections while making our nation an international paraiah, we have truly lost our way.
Every election at every level of government will be a political bloodbath. Many voters will have no voice in our government and how it is run because it will be run like a private corporation.
18
@June
At some point the pitchforks will have to come out!
1
The Supreme Court is as partisan and dysfunctional as the other two branches of our federal government. Issues that should be decided on the merits of their underlying arguments are instead “adjudicated” by the tortured logic and rationalizations of one justice, one man who is determined to portray the Court as non partisan and functional. Although the Court’s “determinations ” have legal standing, each decision can arguably be seen as illegitimate by half the country.
14
@JRT
Not the tortured logic of one man, the tortured logic of five men, who follow a Queen of Hearts approach: Decision first, rationale to follow.
And I suspect that much more than one half of the country sees the current SCOTUS as illegitimate.
3
The syllabus for the decision makes it clear that Commerce has full power to add a citizenship question, provided that it meets the standards of the Administrative Procedures Act, which prevents arbitrary or capricious action.
Roberts says the evidence produced by Commerce does not agree with Commerce's written claims, so the decision was sent back to the lower court, which can now attempt to cut through the disconnect.
In doing so, it seems likely that the lower court will seek evidence presented in a completely separate case that involved the Hofeller documents alleging a nefarious political purpose, and thus suggesting that the Commerce brief contained perjury.
Since Justice only last week inappropriately asked the SCOTUS to resolve the Hofeller case as part of their ruling, this decision is a stunning rebuke of Commerce, Justice, and the White House.
1
While the Court left open the door to new laws to address Gerrymandering, we need a Constitutional Amendment now to fix the system. This ruling on Gerrymandering and the People United decisions broke our democracy.
That decision yesterday paves the way for amendments or...a Revolution. But I don't think the Left has the spine or training to even go there. There are elements on the Right with both, but God help us if they rise up. We'd get Civil War or some version of The Handmaid's Tale.
It's hard to believe that three years ago, such ideas were inconceivable.
25
The most disappointing aspect of the rulings IMO is that SCOTUS again relies upon politics to reach their majority opinions which have little constitutional basis.
14
I am confused. The citizenship question is not allowed on the census because the executive branch didn't provide and adequate explanation for it;s inclusion. Why wouldn't this standard apply to state legislatures regarding gerrymandering unless rigging districts to favor incumbents is considered an adequate explanation. Additionally the article states that ross in conversations with Bannon et al felt that including the citizenship question would aide in gerrymandering procedures. Highly inconsistent rulings.
5
The impact of the Supreme Court upholding partisan gerrymandering is devistating to our democracy. Increased cynacism will further undermine the voting system—when we already have low voter turn-out, a weakened sense of polical engagement, and a full understanding that all citizens and their votes are not equal—shameful in the extreme.
26
Well democrats you better learn to fight ,our fake stolen supreme court said it is perfectly fine to gerrymander so you better do it better than the Republicans.
On that note Trump said it was fine to ask for help in elections so you better get China and the EU on board to get dirt on Trump.
25
Between Citizens United and this latest ruling that permits partisan (and racial) gerrymandering, John Roberts has essentially doomed democracy in America. That is not an overstatement. We are now officially a nation where special interests have unlimited ability to influence and dominate elections that are anything but free or fair. The result will be a nation where gross economic disparity becomes more pronounced, where discrimination becomes more blatant, and where government does not serve the common good but rather private donors. Throw in mountains of debt, a crumbling infrastructure, and the culture divide and it’s clear that America is due for a major social/political unrest if not an outright revolution or civil war. We haven’t seen anything yet.
47
@Henry
Sad but true. For the first time yesterday, I started seriously thinking about where else I could go live on the planet.
If the Dems win in 2020, we may be able to recover by appointing more SCOTUS judges but that's an IF and a MAY.
I thought Donald would make a terrible POTUS but I didn't realize until last year just how far McConnell was prepared to go to 'win'; he's sold the US off to the highest bidder - the Dallas News says McConnell took over $3 million from the Russians so far for his 'campaign funds'.
24
A win, by any means necessary, is still a win. Witness the republicans overthrow of democracy.
18
It is clear now that when the Democrats take control of state and local legislatures that they need to employ extreme gerrymandering to the opposite of what the Republicans have done. This no just becomes a game I'm trying to prevent the other side from being represented appropriately. The Democrats need to play as dirty as the Republicans at this point there is no other option
30
@Michael
I respectfully disagree, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Assuming that the Democrats take control in 2020 (A HUGE assumption given the misinformation fed to voters by the Faux News propaganda channel and the constant lies that come from the right), We need to implement rules that mandate that independent committees have to draw district maps (like has happened in Michigan).
If Team A and Team B are playing against each other and Team A fouls a Team B, Team B doesn't 'win' by palying as dirty as Team A thus bringing themselves down to Team A's (lack of) standards.
5
@Ted Morton
In the Heat of the argument, I spoke without fully considering the nuances of the situation. Of course you are right that if by some miracle the Democrats were to be in charge, then, the right thing to do would be to set a system by which gerrymandering did not take place. However before that is done, all of the harm that has been caused by the previous gerrymandering must be undone! The obvious goal would be to have Fair representation demanded by amended laws of the land and virtually unchangeable. But, somehow I don't see that happening.
5
The primary reason for the Census is congressional apportionment. Congressional apportionment to be fair, must be based solely on citizenship.
2
@Seabeau: So the explicit language of the Constitution now does not matter? Where were the strict constructionists in this decision?
3
@Seabeau
The Constitution is clear on this matter: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
In no way is citizenship part of the decision-making here. All free persons shall be counted—not citizens—free persons. Slaves, who were not considered citizens, were counted, at a rate of 3/5ths. Your suggestion that we only count citizens today is worse than the embarrassing stain on our history that is the 3/5ths compromise and in direct violation of the Constitution.
6
This is hardly a victory for the open border policy of the left. The Trump administration has ample room to restate its position and eke out a favorable ruling quickly.
However, the SCOTUS reaffirms the need for one more replacement before 2020.
2