Wrote Texas Solicitor General William Peterson, quoted in "Alito lets Texas reinstate gerrymandered House map that could give GOP 5 more seats/Alito’s move allowing Texas officials to continue to prepare for primary elections under the new map came just after the state asked the Supreme Court for an urgent ruling" (Politico).
This is a partisan gerrymander, designed to increase Republican representation. It just so happens that white people in the deep south vote overwhelmingly Republican and black people in the deep south vote overwhelmingly democratic. But the real issue here is partisan not racial. And so if you're going to be challenging that as a racial gerrymander, it's very hard for you to win. It's very hard to, for you to win because that partisan makeup is so matched with race.
Without the racial angle, under existing precedent, the federal courts have no role in correcting the excesses of partisan gerrymander.
AND: Thanks to all who offered support to me in yesterday's post, including those who tried to guess which stories I was sloughing off. For example, Leslie Graves, who definitely guessed right:
I don't know what inspired this but stories like that of Olivia Nuzzi, who it turns out also had an affair with Mark Sanford when she was writing about him as he ran for POTUS, a story her ex-fiancee Ryan Lizza dropped on his Substack earlier this week just as excerpts from her book about her RFK Jr relationship made the rounds, and an insanely flattering profile in the NYT came out, feel like maybe you're supposed to write about what her whole deal is, or your readers think you should, or wish you would, because they'd kind of like to know what your take is on her. Yeah, I would resist that, and be irritated about the pressure, even if no one actually said that to me. It's what I would think they might be wishing for.
Posts
28 comments:
Without the racial angle, under existing precedent
….under endangered precedent
Re the pressure and the resistance
Is it any wonder why reporting on politics is now 90% soap opera?
Oh, no, a female reporter was getting dicked by the sources for her stories.
Anyway....
The ratchet is only supposed to go one way.
I’ve misread the statement..The obligation to gerrymander based on race could be gone by next summer, ie progress…
Apparently the person who actually drew the lines had to explain in court in detail how he did it and why. He deftly threw aside ANY argument that race had anything to do with it.
I’m appreciative at the expeditious dispatch of this issue, avoiding a too lengthy visit to the lawless region between Hawaiian judge and scotus…
It’s never over until Roberts’ SCOTUS sings.
The minority opinion from the Circuit was outstanding, calling the majority opinion fiction, that it should get the Nobel for Fiction.
Yes that was a tour de force fisking
Help me out here. Weren’t the original majority-minority districts in question specifically drawn according to race to achieve that outcome and were themselves illegal?
boatbuilder said...
The ratchet is only supposed to go one way.
That is the real issue here.
Democrats have already maxed out their gerrymandering. If Republicans start doing it as well Democrats have no where to go.
For example over 40% of people in Illinois vote for republicans but the state sends 2 republicans to congress. It should be closer to 10.
Massachusetts sends 0 Republicans to congress with 30-40% of it's people voting for Republicans.
Democrats just get mad when Republicans do what they have been doing for decades.
rehajm said...
I’ve misread the statement..The obligation to gerrymander based on race could be gone by next summer, ie progress…
This is the sleeper. This means a permanent Republican Majority until there is a major realignment. Republicans win 90% of counties in the country. The map is naturally reddish with democrats densely packed in cities.
It the Supreme Court eliminates race based districts Democrats are F'd in the house.
It seems the argument is that if you are black, then you must vote Democrat as their slaves. Any attempt to get off the plantation will be fought in court.
But will the Court follow through
Again with the "pressure" thing. It's strictly a female thing. Men have a sense of responsibility (a guide, but voluntary), but women have a sense of obligation (absolute, mandatory). It's all wired in, and the signals are coming from inside, not outside.
Ann, now write about how Putin is cashing in all of his blackmail chips that he has on Neville Chamberlain Trump!!
I read about Nuzzi in other places, and I don't recall any mention of her here. How is that unseen pressure?
In the redistricting case, yes the minority opinion was amazing. I hope things go well for the redistricting, as California and Virginia are going "balls to the wall" with theirs. Virginia democrats seek to flip four republican districts here, and I presume a similar number in California.
When I went to high school in Massachusetts, we had two republican representatives. Now there are none. Heck, we had Republican senators in the 60s.
Same for Virginia.
Alito has undermined the Democrat plan which was to use courts to stop GOP gerrymanders while allowing DEM gerrymanders to go forward.
As I wrote before, though, the gerrymanders are unlikely to produce the desired results everywhere because to increase a party's number of seats you must necessarily make your present seats more vulnerable.
I don't know the origin of the word gerrymander, but it has been around a very long time. I hate it. Everyone is doing it and doing it in a big way. I hate it. There should be a statistical model that creates the districts base on population and geography. No politician would go for it because, regardless of party, they want control. We will reach a level of absurdity where no districts will change party affiliation of their representative. It will be single party rule within a district. The congressional seat will be handed down to the next generation of the rep (Dingall et al.) No more Kings!!!!!!
Goes back to elbridge gerry of massachussetts his district looked likd a salamander
"There should be a statistical model that creates the districts base on population and geography."
I can create your statistical model and have it favor one party over the other across a wide range of favoritism. He who picks the model picks the favorite.
“… But if you want to engage with the very lengthy and emotional lower court opinions….” There’s the rub. When I clerked during the flag burning, draft card burning, etc., era the judge cautioned, “Keep your personal feelings and opinions out of it.” Either those District Court Judges are all dead or the Democrats keep them from hearing cases.
Once written, twice... said...
Ann, now write about how Putin is cashing in all of his blackmail chips that he has on Neville Chamberlain Trump!!
Sad. Trump is making peace.
Retards have thoughts and wish to comment about it.
You should go join the Ukrainian Army. They need troops.
Yancey Ward said...
Alito has undermined the Democrat plan which was to use courts to stop GOP gerrymanders while allowing DEM gerrymanders to go forward.
Maybe. I am sure Kavanaugh, ACB, and Roberts can find a way to keep Democrats in power though.
I retired from law practice more than 20 years ago. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the longer and more passionate these "rogue judge" lower court opinions are, the less actual law they contain. When a District Court judge takes more than 100 pages to explain the "reasons" for his or her decision, there's more emotion than intellectual heft.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.