Republicans set lose multiple seats due to Supreme Court ruling

3 years ago by Baron Von J to c/usa

NAACP president Derrick Johnson welcomed the Supreme Court's decision as a "triumph for our democracy."

After Alabama was ordered to redraw their Congressional maps, Republicans are facing potential loss of some seats in the House.

other_world 33 points 3 years ago

There really needs to be independent nonpartisan redistricting across the country.

path: 0 56720, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 4
carlyman 5 points 3 years ago

How does that actually work in practice? Its a good model to strive for, but impossible to do in reality.

path: 0 56720 58065, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2
other_world 8 points 3 years ago path: 0 56720 58065 58076, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
DevCat 3 points 3 years ago path: 0 56720 58065 72803, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Bautznersenf 1 point 3 years ago

Agreed. But before that can happen blue states need to continue gerrymandering as hard as possible to counterbalance red states.

path: 0 56720 80021, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
unix_joe 16 points 3 years ago
path: 0 56733, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 1
IncognitoErgoSum 7 points 3 years ago

And unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act doesn't fix that completely, but it's better than nothing.

path: 0 56733 57272, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
Sonemonkey 15 points 3 years ago

Good.

path: 0 56581, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0
adespoton 15 points 3 years ago

“Although the majority's decision is disappointing, this case is not over."

Is it just me, or does that sound rather menacing?

The highest court in the country finds the districting lines were intentionally racist and need to be redrawn, and the response is “the fight is not over?”

path: 0 58313, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 1
baronvonj 2 points 3 years ago

Yeah, they're getting increasingly brazen with their rhetoric.

path: 0 58313 73286, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
baronvonj 13 points 3 years ago

Looks like 5 seats could end up becoming Democratic, which would mean an even split of 217 seats each.

path: 0 56827, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 5
TheDogAndTheDragon 2 points 3 years ago

This would only be at the next election right? So it would just make the split more "fair" for what the population in general wants. But the House does tend to go for the winning candidate's Party during a Presidential election year I think.

path: 0 56827 57224, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
RedPander 5 points 3 years ago

Another issue is timing. State(s) could drag their feet in redistricting and if it gets too close to the election say they don't have time to complete the courts request. I hope there's timeliness enforced.

Also, yes usually the house goes to the winning candidate for the first two years than swaps.

path: 0 56827 57224 58125, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 3
Bautznersenf 4 points 3 years ago

That's the Ohio strategy. There just ignoring the court ruling.

path: 0 56827 57224 58125 79920, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2
taj 2 points 3 years ago

Yup. That's the way the Ohio 'non-gerrymandering' law was written. Just drag your feet long enough, and it goes back to the (Republican-leaning) legislature. And then just drag their feet long enough, and those maps get used regardless of legality (they were ruled illegal... 2, 3x over by the state Supreme Court, but no matter!)

path: 0 56827 57224 58125 79920 90854, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
taj 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 56827 57224 58125 79920 90751, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
olivebuffalo 11 points 3 years ago

I am completely okay with that!

path: 0 56652, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 5
NattyNatty2x4 6 points 3 years ago

Honestly I'm surprised the SCOTUS ruled this way. With how clearly activist they've been for christian nationalist interests, I kinda expected them to just nuke anything that might hurt the GOP

path: 0 56652 58288, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 4
adespoton 1 point 3 years ago

Some of SCOTUS was appointed because of their pre-existing views on GOP hot topics. What the GOP is slowly discovering is that this doesn’t always translate to favoring the GOP on everything. Most of SCOTUS still tries to operate within the legal framework, barring the creative interpretations they hold on the topics that got them appointed in the first place.

path: 0 56652 58288 166001, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
taj 1 point 3 years ago

I wish I believed in SCOTUS as much as you. IMHO many of their recent decisions, from roe to the dismantling of the clean water act, etc have shown just how little they care. Not just about precedent, but about the country, it's people, it's land, and resources. Except as they can be exploited for profit.

path: 0 56652 58288 166001 166124, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
maporita 0 points 3 years ago

I think Roberts particularly has become concerned about the backlash against recent decisions, particularly striking down Roe. He really does seem to care about the perception of a partisan supreme court. Kavanaygh I don't know .. that's kind of a weird one.

path: 0 56652 58288 166041, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
taj 1 point 3 years ago

Sadly Im pretty sure Roberts is a minority on SCOTUS, at least amongst the right leaning majority.

path: 0 56652 58288 166041 166042, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Kaiser 5 points 3 years ago

Good, gerrymandering has been a problem for years. I remember talking about it in my GIS classes during college. Unfortunately its very with modern GIS software. GIS and Gerrymandering.. Glad to see the supreme court starting to take some action on it.

path: 0 57481, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
zerkrazus 3 points 3 years ago

I read a comment somewhere where someone theorized that maybe they ruled this way to try to quell dissent ahead of a possible decision we won't like. I think maybe it was the Harper case? Not 100% sure.

path: 0 58289, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2
CynAq 3 points 3 years ago

I heard Krystal Ball say it might be a move to somewhat reestablish the trust in the SC after the RvW decision demolished it. I guess both of these ideas make some sense.

path: 0 58289 58449, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
grabyourmotherskeys 3 points 3 years ago

It should concern everyone that any judicial decision was based on politics. This is true of whether you like the decision or not. The elected representatives reflect the will of the people, not the judiciary (in my biased Canadian view, anyway).

path: 0 58289 58449 65491, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Raphael 1 point 3 years ago

Hope they lose all of them

path: 0 58276, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
usa
usa

@lemmy.ml

login for more options
9517
8767
3356

go to feed...