4 ms·
I'm saying that, like it or not, there's simply no legal basis for SCOTUS to ban gerrymandering if gerrymandering isn't illegal.
by mannerheim 4y ago
I'm saying that, like it or not, there's simply no legal basis for SCOTUS to ban gerrymandering if gerrymandering isn't illegal.
- Spivak 4y agoYeah, the check on the legislature for this kind of thing isn't the courts but the Constitution. Maybe we'll see an amendment in our lifetime.
- mannerheim 4y agoI don't think an amendment would be necessary. Congress has the power to do so without it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vkou 4y agoWhy would the legislatures that gerrymandered themselves in amend the constitution to ban this practice? Waiting for a constitutional amendment on anything in this century is like waiting for Santa Claus. He's not coming.
- ModernMech 4y agoWhat you’re saying is true, but it’s not exactly the end of the story in our post Roe world. SCOTUS has proven they are willing to completely reverse their decisions absent a change in fact or law. If nothing changes except the partisan makeup of the court, then their decisions look partisan when they are reversed. So when SCOTUS says they are bound by the law and Constitution to not make certain decisions, a lot of people now rightly ask: are they really? Because it seems that they can move with great alacrity to twist the law when it suits the political aims of their party.