SCOTUS: Upholds Gerrymandering, Strikes down Census question

What is pretty odd is that both the trump-connected right-winger and the trump-supporting commodore don't seem bothered at all that the trump admin was just called out by the Supreme Court that the trump admin lied, plain and simple. I mean, we all know trump and his admin lie, constantly, about all sorts of things. But for the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court to say it in a ruling.

 

They like it when trump lies. In fact, they love it when trump lies. Since trump lies multiple times everyday, they are continuously happy.

 

as usual, Thomas provides clarity

https://casetext.com/case/department-of-commerce-v-new-york

a standard never applied before, but Orange Man Bad, so it must be struck down, even if it would be perfectly legal for someone else to do the exact same thing

 

Here is the quote from your own link that invalidates your allegation of "zero authority":

the APA requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

This also invalidates the dissenting opinion you have posted on here. The SCOTUS probably doesn't see too many APA based cases and this one only got through due to insistence of administration itself.

 

I’ve seen the maps.

 

actually here's a report on gerrymandering that among other things found Democrat-drawn maps from 2011 were actually less compact on average than those rigged by Republicans, e.g.:

. . . The mean Polsby-Popper, Schwartzberg and Reock scores indicate that districts drawn with total GOP control have a higher compactness score than districts drawn with total Democratic control under those measures. States with split control fall in the middle. Nevertheless, districts with a political party in control remain less compact than the national average by every measure. In addition, districts where a party has control are significantly less compact than districts drawn by a non-partisan process (see Table 9). Using the convex hull measure shows a different story. Districts drawn by a split in control come out with a higher compactness score, with districts drawn by the GOP not far behind. Districts drawn by the Democratic Party are much less compact than either. . . .

While districts drawn by Republicans in this decennial redistricting process may be somewhat more compact than those drawn by Democrats, it is also clear that both parties appeared to take advantage of their situation and draw districts more favorable to their party’s election. For example, Democrats took advantage in Maryland and Illinois while Republi-cans took advantage in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Republicans just had many more states, which may have buffered their average (p. 11).​

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.azavea....on/pdfs/Redistricting_The_Nation_Addendum.pdf

 

Keep digging.

 

The Constitution says to count every person. Everything else is legislation and regulation and totally within the SC's power.

 

California is not entirely Democrat. That being said both parties do it and neither should.

 

"Jerry Nadler Represents A District Gerrymandered To Capture White Voters." Excerpt:

It starts in Southern Brooklyn, in a mostly white Democratic neighborhood called Bensonhurst, then dances a slender line through more conservative Bay Ridge, then up the mostly white Democrat Brooklyn coast of the East River, skips Chinatown to capture the Financial District, Chelsea, and the Upper West Side — all enclaves of, you guessed it, mostly white Democrats.

To pretend that something other than “Let’s give Nadler a district full of white Democrats” is going on strains credulity. Even Nadler would be hard pressed to explain how this coincidence happened. So let’s stop playing games. Politics is politics; it’s hard-nosed and scruffy. Both sides have always used this tool, and there’s only been one civil war.

In cases where it can be proven that bias played a part in districting, we need to take a long, hard look at it. But again, no reasonable person can conclude that Nadler’s district is composed of anything but a racial preference, assuming whites have a bias towards a white candidate. And what other groups might be harmed by giving Nadler such a white district — if the white vote were more diffuse, would it help non-white candidates, even if it harmed Nadler?

This is where the hard questions about districting arise. Nobody knows what a perfect district looks like, what it ought reflect or represent. This cartography of democracy can be sliced and diced any which way. What the Supreme Court rightly landed on is that we let the people we elect work it out. It’s why we elect them.

Frankly, both political parties will likely sigh some relief at this decision. Instead of being thrown into some new kind of regulatory chaos, they can continue the back-room deals that land guys like Nadler sweetheart districts. And you know what? That’s how it works. You don’t like it? Elect better representatives.​

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/2...strict-gerrymandered-to-capture-white-voters/

 

If there was going to be a flip vote on these two items, I would have bet and been wrong that they allow the census question and strike down the redistricting (what it is called if your side does it) / gerrymandering ( what it is called if the other side does it).

 

It is against the law not to provide a solid reason. It is the SC's role to uphold the law, not just the constitution. It can strike down laws that are unconstitutional but it otherwise still is a court

 

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...p-is-a-gerrymander-from-somebodys-perspective

 

We all know "gerrymandering" is subjective. This is not a revelation.

 

just trying to help

 

You would think by now they could come up with a computer algorithm to draw districts in a way that didn't give either party an advantage. Of course such a system would be opposed simply if it either party lost a seat because of it.

 

The effects of gerrymandering...

 

Meanwhile, as Texas republicans prepare to gerrymander the state, they passed new laws to hide what they are doing...

'Hide the evidence': New Texas law may help GOP keep secrets about its redistricting strategy

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/tex...-help-gop-keep-secrets-redistricting-strategy

 

This seems like it will be challenged in court. That last statement is pretty brazen and stupid by the rep as he’s basically stating that he wants to do what he wants without checks and balances.