STATES ALREADY RULED ON PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING | Justices Decide, Redskins Were Right
June 21, 2017
TODAY IN HISTORY
|On this day in 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag as a form of political protest was protected by the First Amendment.
BEAT TO THE PUNCH
|The biggest Supreme Court news this week is the justices’ decision to take on a Wisconsin case that could ultimately decide the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. But as Thomas Fuller and Michael Wines with The New York Times report, other states across the country have already beat the Supreme Court to the punch on eliminating politics from gerrymandering — starting with good old California. They note, “California is the largest of a handful of states that are trying to minimize the partisanship in the almost invariably political act of drawing district lines. California has handed that task to the independent and politically balanced California Citizens Redistricting Commission.” But California is not alone. Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Oregon have all started draining out the politics to make their elections more fair.
COURAGEOUS POLITICIANS
|Although these state efforts to curb partisan gerrymandering is applaudable, it ain’t easy — and it’s maybe not even entirely effective. Fuller and Wines with NYT write, “Still, on the whole, taking the politics out of map drawing is itself an act of political courage that many politicians, particularly those who benefit from district lines drawn to help their party, are unwilling to stomach. Skeptics say that even nominally nonpartisan commissions can succumb to political calculation. ‘An independent redistricting commission is only as independent as those who appoint it,’ said Pamela Goodman, the president of the League of Women Voters of Florida.”
TOP-ED
|Together, Tim Cullen, a former Democratic majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate, and Dale Schultz, a former Republican majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate opine in The Washington Post about the Supreme Court’s latest case regarding their state’s gerrymandering practices. “We’re both deeply concerned that the political system in Wisconsin — as in so much of the country — is broken. Nothing epitomizes the problem more than the extreme partisan gerrymandering that has taken hold in Wisconsin and other states, where politicians and special interests have rigged the system, manipulating voting maps to keep their own political party in power with little regard for the will of the voters.”
NSFW – EDBILE CROTCHLESS GUMMY PANTIES:
|In case you were worried your Wednesday hasn’t been spicy enough, Dan Steinberg with The Washington Post is here to shake things up. In his latest, he confesses that sometimes when he’s bored, he likes to imagine Supreme Court JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO when he scanned the appendix of the amicus brief the Redskins filed in The Slants’ trademark case. The appendix included a list of pending registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office that might be considered derogatory or offensive — and trust me, it’s a pretty risqué list including everything from Anal Ring Toss to Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties. Steinberg: “‘Why yes,’ I imagine Alito thinking to himself, as he considered the implications of subjective government registration of the Anal Ring Toss trademark. ‘The Redskins might have a point here. Turning trademarks into implicit government speech opens up a whole universe of problematic First Amendment issues.’” But as Steinberg points out, as “offensive” and “derogatory” as that list of registrations may have been, the Supreme Court justices still sided with the Redskins’ argument. Steinberg writes, “The Supreme Court read that list, and decided, ‘You know what? the Redskins are right.'”
KEEP YOUR EYES PEELED
|“On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court’s nine justices will meet behind closed doors to consider appeals in the Trump administration’s immigration ban case. Here is a brief rundown of what to expect before and after that meeting.” That’s Scott Bomboy with Constitution Daily prepping us on what we should be watching for in the Supreme Court’s consideration of PRESIDENT TRUMP’S “travel ban.”
IN REVIEW
|David Savage with the Los Angeles Times offers us a look back at the biggest decisions we’ve seen so far in OT16, as well as a preview of the cases that are still awaiting decisions from the justices.
OTHER NEWS
How a Shorthanded Supreme Court Gutted a Historic Civil Rights Remedy
New York Magazine“For all the talk about an eight-member Supreme Court being bad for the country, imagine a diminished, six-member version of the court making, or unmaking, a key principle of American law in ways that will long outlast today’s constitutional moment. That’s exactly what happened Monday, when a grand total of four justices issued a significant ruling that more or less gutted a person’s ability, citizen or not, to sue federal officials who engage in egregious violations of constitutional rights.”
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Massive Talc Litigation Against J&J
Reuters“Johnson & Johnson is seizing upon a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from Monday limiting where injury lawsuits can be filed to fight off claims it failed to warn women that talcum powder could cause ovarian cancer. New Jersey-based J&J has been battling a series of lawsuits over its talc-based products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, brought by around 5,950 women and their families. The company denies any link between talc and cancer.”
Politicians Choosing Their Voters vs. Voters Choosing Their Politicians
ReasonA Look at Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Team of Lawyers
The Associated Press“The team includes a former Fulbright Scholar in Russia, as well as a criminal law expert who’s argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. There’s also a former FBI counterterrorism agent, along with a veteran prosecutor who took down mobsters and went after Enron executives — and a lawyer with experience in the Watergate case. At the top is Robert Mueller, who spent 12 years as director of the FBI before retiring from the bureau in 2013.”