re: New SCOTUS ruling shifts 12 house seats to Republicans across the South

"we need a constitutional amendment to do away with partisan gerrymandering forever. "Safe" Democratic districts where you win the primary election (and therefore the general election) by being as leftist as possible and "safe" Republican districts where you win the primary election (and therefore the general election) by being as right wing as possible are a very large part of what's wrong with American politics."

Totally agree. Too bad SCOTUS took a big hard pass on this issue a few years ago (in a case that had nothing to do with race, so this is a different issue).

LINK

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26, 2019
Decided June 27, 2019
Full case name Robert A. Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al.
Docket no. 18-422

Holding
Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

Dissent Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering.[1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.[2]


The case was one of three heard in the 2018 term dealing with issues related to partisan gerrymandering used in the districting plans of states. It was combined with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and its decision included the Court's judgment on Lamone v. Benisek, a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland.[3] The 5–4 decision, divided along ideological lines, left in place North Carolina's congressional districts, which favored the Republican Party, and Maryland's congressional districts, which favored the Democratic Party.[4]

Background
While the case was challenged at the Supreme Court, the previous chairmen of the state's redistricting committee, State Senator Bob Rucho and Representative David R. Lewis, brought in an expert to help with a new map, while a new redistricting committee was formed by the Republican-favored General Assembly and voted on seven principles for this new map. Among them, the new map would not be developed using any data on racial makeup, but that it would use political makeup to strive to keep the same proportion of voters in each district. Lewis was quoted as saying "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."[5] The District Court approved the 2016 map, and it has been used for both the 2016 and was set to be used in the 2018 general elections.


The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", vacating and remanding the lower courts' decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.[20] Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to enact laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.[2]

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan's opinion was critical of the majority: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."[2]

quote:

---

This is how you essentially get states to self select into some kind of disunited states.

---

That's how it was supposed to be, as the original design by our founding fathers... long before the rot and bloat of an infinitely overreaching federal bureaucracy. Individual nation-States, united only beneath a mutually beneficial banner of military protection and an extremely finite set of rules placed at the federal level.

quote:

---

Secession will be the ultimate outcome, either explicit or implicit.

---

A totally acceptable outcome, though I would prefer just returning to limited federal power and oversight. Balkanization would be a big win.

Unfortunately, the Etatist Kleptocracy cannot and will not let a peaceful and amicable separation occur, nor allow a retrofitted form of government to be installed that will deprive them of their power and wealth. This ends in a civil war. A very, VERY ugly and biblical one. That's the unfortunate truth.

Call me a "doomer" like others if you wish, but I've been looking at this scenario and studying it for many moons, and a review of past history of similar scenarios serves to portend a bleak and violent future for our nation. The rot has to be dealt with, and when you cannot handle it through voting, civil discourse in negotiation or the rights bestowed upon you, there is only one remaining solution. Some people won't see it until it's already happened, and they'll wonder why there was "no warning". Others among us can see it coming, and are spreading warnings that fall upon the deaf ears of the ignorant.

quote:

---

What I mean is that you'll see people self select (it's already happening) by migrating to places where they can live with people with the same values. Red states will get redder, blue states will get bluer, and eventually you'll have states just ignore the federal government on certain issues.

---

I'm not seeing that as a negative and think it would be a vast improvement over progressives making their blue states shitholes then moving to red states and trying to make the same mistakes all over again.

quote:

---

United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering.

---

What does that have to do with this case, regarding racial gerrymandering?

quote:

---

The districts that run from Mobile to the Georgia State line are idiotic

---

As is district 7 that includes half of montgomery and still has to have a section that runs up 59 to birmingham to give a black majority.

quote:

---

I get what you're saying but there arent any parts of the country where far right candidates are winning anything.

---

I'm not going to get into a semantics debate about what is and isn't "far right."

I'm saying that there are many districts where the golden rule of politics is "don't let anyone run to the right (or left) of you in the primary and you've got it in the bag." I don't think there's much room to debate against that point.

quote:

---

Long term, this is not a win for any of us.

---

Mwade is pissed he can’t be racist with the rest of the Dems anymore.

quote:

---

"We always lose because we fight with one hand tied behind our backs! The Republicans don't give a shite about rules and principles and we do, so we let them get away with everything. Yeah, partisan gerrymandering is bad, but at least we're finally fighting back and not rolling over."

---

Bingo

It's time for us (the Repubs) to scrap the lube and go in raw.

Agree totally

Congressional Districts should follow existing state political boundaries to be explicable

quote:

---

I'm sure that meemaw is all over it.

---

Guvnah mee maw won’t do anything, but Tubbs will.