TERM WINDS DOWN, SCOTUS STILL SWINGING | Free Speech Wins Big | The Difference Between Constitutional and Decent
June 20, 2017
NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU NEED ME, NEED ME
|Monday brought us from YUGE news from SCOTUSland. The justices delivered decisions that will have profound impact on the very fabric of this country, and the headlines keep a’coming. Let’s get to it…
GERRYMANDERING, MEET CONSTITUTION
|“Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing self-serving political boundaries, is as old as the country itself. Its impetus, one could argue, is even older and deeper-seated, grounded in the fundamentals of human nature.” ICYMI, SCOTUS decided it’s ready to wade into the age-old practice of gerrymandering, announcing yesterday it will hear a landmark case out of Wisconsin that will test the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Mark Z. Barabak with the Los Angeles Times explains that the case could “drastically change the country’s politics by injecting much greater competition into races for Congress and for statehouses nationwide.”
TERM WINDS DOWN, SCOTUS STILL SWINGING
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports on the Supreme Court’s big day yesterday, noting that of all its actions, the most high-profile announcement was its decision to take on political gerrymandering. Totenberg: “Both major political parties have long sought to gain partisan advantage when drawing state legislative and congressional district lines after each decennial census. But with the advent of computers, and the growth of one party dominance in many states, the practice has grown exponentially.” And though pretty much everyone is guilty of some partisanship in their gerrymandering, Totenberg points out that it’s the Republicans that have the most to lose at the Supreme Court.
HOW IT HAPPENED
|Vox’s Dylan Matthews explains how two academics convinced the Supreme Court to reexamine gerrymandering. The thrust of their argument has to do with “wasted votes” and how an “efficiency gap” could be the test for whether partisan gerrymandering is improper or unconstitutional.
NOT ALONE NO MO
|Michael Cooper with The New York Times reports the Wisconsin gerrymandering case echoes similar cases over redistricting that are happening all across the country. Read his analysis of Pennsylvania and Maryland, two states with election maps currently under the review of courts.
MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
|“Monday’s decision indicates that JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY and the court are, at the very least, moving in the right direction on the issues at the heart of partisan gerrymandering. Free expression and association aren’t really free if the government can punish you for your viewpoint by ensuring your ballot doesn’t matter; the right to vote isn’t fundamental if it can be diluted on the basis of political affiliation. The basic First Amendment principles Kennedy espoused on Monday explain why the court may well curtail partisan gerrymandering next term. In fact, they explain why the Constitution demands nothing less.” That’s Mark Joseph Stern with Slate considering how the Supreme Court is likely to rule in its consideration of the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The New York Times weighed in on yesterday’s big news from SCOTUS, noting the Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in not just one but two big cases.
BEWARE, BOO BOO
|And though the two free speech cases yesterday were notable in their scope and consequence, Matt Ford with The Atlantic points out that the justices emphasized a similar theme in both rulings: “Beware what the free-speech restrictions of today could be used to justify tomorrow.”
SOME NECESSARY GUIDANCE
|“The United States is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.” That’s the Editorial Board of The Washington Post opining that yesterday’s two SCOTUS decisions on free speech provided some very necessary guidance. Even so, WaPo still thinks the NFL team’s name should be changed suggesting that the answer “is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably can’t be one of them.” The Ed Board notes, “As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing.”
TIME FOR AN 8-CLAP
|So there’s no confusion, UCLA’s Supreme Court Clinic was behind the victory in Matal v. Tam in which the justices ruled 8-0 to uphold free speech protections for Asian American rock band, The Slants.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMING OUT PARTY
|Selena Larson with CNN explains why the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to allow registered sex offender to use Facebook and other social sites is like one big constitutional coming out party. “The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major milestone in the internet era — it is among the first decisions to target social media use.”
DODGING INSANITY
|Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick suggests that perhaps the Supreme Court doesn’t know how the justice system should deal with mental illness. Analyzing yesterday’s ruling in favor an Alabama death row prisoner, Lithwick writes, “The death penalty may still be dying in America. But we continue to have no idea what to do about mentally ill defendants in court.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
A Resounding Victory for Free Speech
USA Today“The beauty of the government our Founders created is that people who find The Slants — or any other name — offensive have plenty of options to express their disgust. They could go to a Slants concert and protest. Or launch a boycott. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech, not getting the government to ban it.”
How SCOTUS Can Make Elections Fairer
CNN“Do we want a democracy in which politicians (of any party) can virtually assure their re-election and continued dominance in a state simply because of the way that they draw the maps? Or does a strong democracy require meaningful checks on partisan abuses in election rules?”
Supreme Court Doesn't Care What You Say on the Internet
Bloomberg“Things may turn out differently in Europe, where governments are increasingly pushing internet giants to follow domestic speech regulations. In the U.S., however, the combination of the First Amendment and private ownership of social media is creating a brave new world of free speech.”
"Things may turn out differently in Europe, where governments are increasingly pushing internet giants to follow domestic speech regulations. In the U.S., however, the combination of the First Amendment and private ownership of social media is creating a brave new world of free speech."
The Hill“It is curious to consider whether the Supreme Court has opened the proverbial floodgate to the registration of prejudicial or offensive marks — those which could be deemed disparaging, immoral or scandalous under the law — including, for example, “Ku Klux Klan,” which was refused registration in 2005, “Coffee Nazi,” which was refused registration in 2014, or even “Islamic Terrorists,” which was applied for earlier this year.”
OTHER NEWS
Why The Slants Took a Fight Over Their Band Name to the Supreme Court
The New York TimesThe Next Big Political Case at the Supreme Court: 6 Key Questions
The National Law Journal“Kennedy appears likely to be key, especially if he likes the test for measuring partisan gerrymanders proposed by the challengers to the Wisconsin plan. He and Thomas are the only justices remaining from the Vieth majority, and Ginsburg and Breyer are the only Vieth dissenters still on the court. So, it will be interesting to see how the more recent justices view the constitutional question.”
Supreme Court Tightens Rules on Class-Action Lawsuits
The Washington Post“The Supreme Court on Monday issued a ruling that makes it more difficult for plaintiffs attorneys to look for friendly locations for their lawsuits, a practice known as ‘court shopping.’”