SCOTUS shoots down Ohio voting district challenge

[SunsetBengal]

And rightly so. It's not their place to side with one political party over the other.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-tosses-challenge-to-republican-drawn-ohio-congressional-maps/ar-AAIoX5P?ocid=spartanntp

Quote:The court's action in the case involving a practice known as partisan gerrymandering means that 16 U.S. House of Representatives districts will no longer be reconfigured, as a three-judge panel had ordered in May.
The Supreme Court had put the panel's ruling on hold ahead of its rulings, issued the next month, in two major gerrymandering cases from Maryland and North Carolina.
The justices in June dealt a major blow to election reformers by saying in its June 27 ruling that federal courts have no role to play in reining in electoral map manipulation by politicians aimed at entrenching one party in power.
The ruling gave the Ohio challengers little option but to concede defeat. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

[GMDino]

(10-08-2019, 02:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And rightly so.  It's not their place to side with one political party over the other.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-tosses-challenge-to-republican-drawn-ohio-congressional-maps/ar-AAIoX5P?ocid=spartanntp

And yet that's just what they did...lol.

[Belsnickel]

It should be a bipartisan effort to end partisan gerrymandering. I agree it shouldn't be a role for the courts, but this just means we need to step up efforts to put a stop to it.

[Benton]

(10-08-2019, 02:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And rightly so.  It's not their place to side with one political party over the other.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-tosses-challenge-to-republican-drawn-ohio-congressional-maps/ar-AAIoX5P?ocid=spartanntp

I think the hope was they wouldn't, but unfortunately they have.

Allowing a party to manipulate the election process as to allow  thatparty to maintain control over a majority is siding with that party. And, just speaking to the health of a democracy, this is a cancer. It turns people off from participating. And without representation, they get frustrated. And when they get frustrated, they don't care about the rules.

You want to end things like antifa and blm? Then quit manipulating the system to prohibit huge segments of the population from having representation.

[BmorePat87]

No one should be cheering this. Gerrymandering is an affront on democracy. Unfortunately, the courts are not powered to play referee on partisan gerrymandering. They can rule on racial gerrymandering and outright voter suppression/misrepresentation, but until we have federal legislation, this can continue.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 02:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And rightly so.  It's not their place to side with one political party over the other.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-tosses-challenge-to-republican-drawn-ohio-congressional-maps/ar-AAIoX5P?ocid=spartanntp

How would they be siding with one party when the rules apply to both parties?

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2019, 02:30 PM)Benton Wrote: Allowing a party to manipulate the election process as to allow  thatparty to maintain control over a majority is siding with that party. And, just speaking to the health of a democracy, this is a cancer. It turns people off from participating. And without representation, they get frustrated. And when they get frustrated, they don't care about the rules.

This

(10-08-2019, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one should be cheering this. Gerrymandering is an affront on democracy.

And this.

The only people cheering are the party doing the gerrymandering.

[CJD]

You gotta hand it to the Right.

They're really cashing in on those two SCOTUS seats that Trump got to place.

If the Left felt as strongly about the Supreme Court as the Right did, Hillary would have been President despite the fact that she's "like, totally shady, guys."
 And then she would have assigned 2 left (or more likely moderate) judges who would have sided against Gerrymandering. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality we live in.

Of course, this article doesn't say what the vote count was, so maybe those judges would have thrown it out as well, I'm not sure. That said, I'm not sure why people are applauding the fact that Gerrymandering is allowed to persist.

[CKwi88]

(10-09-2019, 08:11 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You gotta hand it to the Right.

They're really cashing in on those two SCOTUS seats that Trump got to place.

If the Left felt as strongly about the Supreme Court as the Right did, Hillary would have been President despite the fact that she's "like, totally shady, guys."
 And then she would have assigned 2 left (or more likely moderate) judges who would have sided against Gerrymandering. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality we live in.

Of course, this article doesn't say what the vote count was, so maybe those judges would have thrown it out as well, I'm not sure. That said, I'm not sure why people are applauding the fact that Gerrymandering is allowed to persist.

It's already been said. This thread doesn't get made (at least by this OP) if SCOTUS had shot down a challenge to maps drawn by the democratic party.

Everyone laments corruption and partisanship until it's their "side" getting the benefit.

[SunsetBengal]

My entire point is that establishment of State voter districts is a State matter, and of no concern to the Federal Courts, let alone the SCOTUS. If enough people in each State become dissatisfied with how districts are drawn, then they need to vote out their incumbents, and demand that things change.

[GMDino]

(10-09-2019, 10:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My entire point is that establishment of State voter districts is a State matter, and of no concern to the Federal Courts, let alone the SCOTUS.  If enough people in each State become dissatisfied with how districts are drawn, then they need to vote out their incumbents, and demand that things change.

Perhaps you don't understand what gerrymandering is?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-09-2019, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Perhaps you don't understand what gerrymandering is?

Gerrymandering makes a positive result for your party more likely, not guaranteed.  I believe Sunset's point was that, given enough public displeasure over the practice a positive result for the other side can still be achieved.  

[SunsetBengal]

(10-09-2019, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Perhaps you don't understand what gerrymandering is?

I understand exactly what gerrymandering is.  What I'm saying is that the public can rally, petition their State Legislature, and demand that something be done.  I'd say that there are enough fair minded individuals in each party that would like to see things done as fairly as possible, that the desired results can be achieved.

This is not a Federal matter, it's a State/Local matter to be settled by the residents that are affected.

[GMDino]

(10-09-2019, 11:26 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I understand exactly what gerrymandering is.  What I'm saying is that the public can rally, petition their State Legislature, and demand that something be done.  I'd say that there are enough fair minded individuals in each party that would like to see things done as fairly as possible, that the desired results can be achieved.

This is not a Federal matter, it's a State/Local matter to be settled by the residents that are affected.

Ok, then you don't understand gerrymandering because if that bold sentence was correct we wouldn't have to have this conversation.

[*Nately120*]

I'm pretty sure some deft gerrymandering could prevent a voting public determined to end gerrymandering from ending gerrymandering. What it really comes down to is so many people have to be against gerrymandering that even the more egregious gerrymandering can't sway the vote into one of pro-gerrymandering.

So basically, it's like competing against someone who cheats and then says you should stop whining because if you wanted to win badly enough them cheating shouldn't have been enough to win.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 10:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My entire point is that establishment of State voter districts is a State matter, and of no concern to the Federal Courts, let alone the SCOTUS. 

That was not your point at all.  Your point was about the SC not ruling against your party's gerrymandering.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

(10-08-2019, 02:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's not their place to side with one political party over the other.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-09-2019, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That was not your point at all.  Your point was about the SC not ruling against your party's gerrymandering.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

Exactly, they threw the case out.  They didn't rule in favor of anyone, as they didn't make a ruling.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2019, 12:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exactly, they threw the case out.  They didn't rule in favor of anyone, as they didn't make a ruling.

But any ruling they would have made would have applied to everyone equally, not just one party.

The only reason you see it as a partisan issue is because the ruling would have hurt your party in Ohio.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-09-2019, 12:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But any ruling they would have made would have applied to everyone equally, not just one party.

The only reason you see it as a partisan issue is because the ruling would have hurt your party in Ohio.

So, before the district boundaries were drawn to favor the Republicans, which side do you suppose they favored?

[*michaelsean*]

The no decision is correct. There are no rights for these private political parties to have evenly divided districts. I don't like gerrymandering either because I hate all the safe seats, and this just adds to them. Lets the crazies act crazy.