Discussion: SCOTUS Allows Virginia Map Redrawn To Fix Racial Gerrymander To Stand

[castor_troy]

Yep, it’s calling throwing us a bone.

Based on your avatar, it was the right call…

[khyber900]

While the VA decision might end up being a double edged sword for Dems if this standing issue is used against them in other cases, the reaffirmation of dual sovereignty will help the Dems and hurt Trump and his associates personally.

NYS can prosecute Manafort for the same crimes that the Feds prosecuted him on. A pardon has no value for him. Manhattan DA is already prosecuting Manafort for additional crimes. That might actually get him to cough up evidence that he denied Mueller in exchange for a shorter sentence. An impeachment proceeding might change Manafort’s political calculus as he might think Trump too weak and undependable to stay in jail for. Problem for Manafort is that his credibility is shot but perhaps he has stashes and docs he can offer.

This will also factor into the Trump family’s thinking on tax and financial fraud claims. If Dems ever get the political will to open a formal impeachment inquiry, you could see a flood of action in the courts as it becomes open season on anything Trump.

[hornblower]

Any attorney should be embarrassed that judges are so ideological. We civilians wonder what is taught in law school.

[jonney_5]

I mean, we can play that game all day. They could make it legal to kill people who aren’t Republicans too, I guess.

Don’t give them any ideas…

[jonney_5]

Or this nugget…

“the justices have likely tilted the 2019 elections in Democrats’ favor”

WTF is that?

Um, more like “took the racist Republican thumb off the scale for the 2019 elections”

[zillacop]

I’d say let’s be happy with this ruling and not project what terrible rulings will be in the future. We have to celebrate any small victory at this stage of our corrupt government.

[geofu54]

WTF?

My instant reaction too. Momentarily thought it was still Sunday…

[midnight_rambler]

On the contrary, I don’t think this shows anything at all about how they would vote on the merits of a gerrymandering case (I expect it would be along traditional liberal-conservative lines, but who knows). I’m glad the maps will stay so I’ll take it, but I really don’t like the decision. Any participant in a case should be able to continue to appeal it, and the frequent dismissals based on standing really bother me because they usually end up preventing any kind of justice. The constitutionality of any law should be able to be challenged even if no one is directly affected by it.

[lowtechcyclist]

Republicans currently hold a 51-96 majority in the chamber.

I think you meant 51-49.

[curtadams]

No, the Justices haven’t “tilted the 2019 elections in Democrats’ favor”. They have allowed a fair election to continue, because the current map is fair, not favoring either side. In a state with something like a 10% majority for Democrats, a map tilted to the Democrats would have almost no Republicans elected.

[vlharpley]

I agree, they only ruled the way they did, due to standing.

[thunderclapnewman]

IT’s still a good ruling.

And the standing issue has the potential to stop other frivolous right-wing lawsuits.

[ottnott]

I mean, we can play that game all day. They could make it legal to kill people who aren’t Republicans too, I guess. I’m just pointing out a fact.

Yes, people shouldn’t let their imaginations go too wild here. The Supreme Court is an incredibly powerful institution. If it makes too many decisions that are too damaging to other institutions, it could find itself without any foundation supporting its own power.

[ncsteve]

Weirdest 5-4 split I’ve ever seen or heard of. Naturally it was on a fairly technical issue, but nonetheless . . .

[ncsteve]

I think it just means they all were rabbit-pathing on a technical issue where pedantry crushed ideology. Usually only see it in I.P. cases and rarely then because they tend not to take I.P. cases without a larger majority determined to smack down an uppity court of appeals that’s usually the Federal Circuit.

[professorpoopypants]

“According to one analysis of the new map, six House of Delegates districts held by Republicans could be shifted towards Democrats. Republicans currently hold a 51-96 majority in the chamber.”

That should read “51-49 majority.”

Just a typo, but one that significantly distorts the impact this decision is likely to have on control of the chamber.

[tpr]

I expect this to be the “bone” they’re throwing us before basically setting the GOP loose with a gerrymandering bazooka

I don’t think it will be a gerrymandering bazooka. I think it will be related to executive privilege and shielding Trump from the law, because pulling that thread could reveal many of the nasty things the GOP has been up to.

[tpr]

Am I right to worry that the principle that a chamber of congress can only have standing if the other chamber agrees could be a dangerous principle?

Good thinking! But, I think this ruling doesn’t set that up.

From the related Prime analysis piece:

The GOP-controlled House of Delegates did not have standing to bring the case to the justice, Ginsburg wrote, citing a Virginia statute that gives the state’s attorney general — who had opted not to appeal a ruling that a 2011 map was a racial gerrymander — the exclusive authority to defend the state in civil litigation.

That seems like importantly different rationale than that cited in this article, which reads:

“One House of its bicameral legislature cannot alone continue the litigation against the will of its partners in the legislative process,” Ginsburg wrote, referring the state’s House of Delegates.

I think we’d have to read the full opinion to see how these separate statements engage with the problem.

[tol]

This practicing attorney agrees.

[2strange]

The article should read 51-48 Republican majority, not 51-96.
This is not an indication of SCOTUS opposition to gerrymandering; it is decided on a technicality. I will be interested to read Ginsberg’s dissent.