TIME IS NOW FOR GERRYMANDERING DECISION FROM SCOTUS | Why Two Is Better Than One | JPS Played Right Into NRA’s Hands
March 29, 2018
IT TAKES TWO BABY
|On their second go at the issue of partisan gerrymandering, the justices seemed no closer to an answer on how to rule. Yesterday at SCOTUS, the justices heard the case from Maryland in which Democrats were the ones responsible for gerrymandering their state map. There’s concern from justices about wading into a political issue between Democrats and Republicans, and even those justices who see the practice as deplorable are unsure of how a constitutional test would be applied.
JUST HOW BAD WAS IT
|The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham explains just how bad the gerrymandering was in Maryland and how Democrats pulled it off. To get a sense of what we’re talking about, Ingraham refers to Democrats’ gerrymandering as “genius” for what it was able to accomplish.
GET OVER IT AND DO SOMETHING
|“It’s perhaps easy to have sympathy for the justices in this instance. Partisan redistricting is easier to identify than to rectify. Several of them have heard other cases on the subject over the past decade or so (without settling the law). And, as the justices dawdle, the problem is growing worse. With the advent of ever more powerful computer technology, politicians can draw legislative districts with chilling precision; they can guarantee victory or defeat before a single vote is cast. The 2020 census is drawing near, and the district lines for every legislative seat in the country will soon be redrawn. The time for the Supreme Court to address the problem is now.” That’s Jeffrey Toobin writing for The New Yorker about yesterday’s partisan gerrymandering case.
STOP THE DITHERING
|Toobs isn’t the only one rolling his eyes at the Supreme Court’s inaction on partisan gerrymandering. The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times says that after decades of agonizing over the issue, it’s time for justices to actually do something about it. LAT: “Now that the second act of this legal drama has been played out, the justices should move toward the denouement: a decision holding that the Constitution prohibits congressional and legislative maps that are clearly designed to entrench one party and dilute the votes of the other. Such a ruling would strike a blow for representative government and put both political parties on notice that the sort of undemocratic mapmaking they have engaged in is no longer permissible.”
TOP-ED
|“How do judges know what they need to know in order to perform the job of deciding cases?” That question is top of mind for Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times. In her latest she explores how judges know what they know and responds to JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY’S “put-down” of JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR during oral argument last week.
ONE-TWO STEP
|Galen Druke with FiveThirtyEight explains why the justices heard two partisan gerrymandering cases this term — this week’s out of Maryland and one from earlier this term out of Wisconsin. He highlights the three key differences between the two cases that might help us understand how the court is thinking about partisan gerrymandering.
ON THE ROAD
|On April 4th, JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER will be at Tufts University to discuss the law, interpreting the constitution and the current state of America’s civic institutions. The event is free and open to the Tufts community, but a ticket is required.
GIVING UP THE GUN
|Laurence Tribe writes in The Washington Post in response to the op-ed from former JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS which called for a repeal of the Second Amendment. He says it’s not the Second Amendment that’s the problem when it comes to common sense gun policy, and JPS played right into the hands of the NRA which is always looking for any opportunity to prove that gun opponents just want an end to 2A.
SCOTUS VIEWS
Why The Stevens Gun Manifesto Is Beyond Irresponsible
CNN“Not only is repeal unattainable, it would also be ineffective and unnecessary. Despite Justice Stevens’ preposterous assertion that the Second Amendment is the ‘only legal rule’ protecting gun sellers, 44 states include a right to bear arms in their state constitutions. And there are numerous laws both ensuring and limiting the rights of their buyers and sellers.”
If Trump Causes A Constitutional Crisis, Will Roberts Court Show The Courage Of John Marshall?
Los Angeles Times“If the president fires Robert S. Mueller III, seeks to obstruct the investigations or refuses to answer questions, what then? Ultimately, the answers must come from the Supreme Court. The Roberts court, however, is bitterly divided between ideologues on the left and right. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been unable to forge a genuine consensus up until now on almost any significant issue. Unless the Supreme Court speaks with one voice, Trump may refuse to comply with the court’s order. And if the president flouts the court, the Constitution and the rule of law itself may be threatened.”
Repealing The Second Amendment Would Be Incredibly Difficult
The Washington Post“Not only would repeal supporters need to find a lot of voters in the right places, they would also need those voters to be highly motivated. Gun owners may be a minority of the population, but they really care about their right to own those guns. If a politician threatens to take their guns away, they will make sure they get to the polling place come November to vote against that politician, even if they support his other policy proposals.”