South Carolina's Gerrymandering Case, Explained | Advisory Opinions w/ Sarah Isgur and David French

Подписаться 11 тыс.

50% 1

Sarah gives us a taste of her interview with retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer before she and David dive into the latest SCOTUS ruling on racial gerrymandering.
The Agenda:
-Justice Breyer and the Major Questions Doctrine
-Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
-Conduct vs. speech and Morgan Wallen’s Nashville bar
-Random swipes at text, history, and tradition from David
-Approving a SCOTUS nominee from opposing parties?
-Amending the amendment process
-Codifying the judicial filibuster
-Justice Samuel Alito flag watch
To get show notes:
thedispatch.co...
#SCOTUS #law #politics #conservative

Опубликовано:

27 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 5

@jem7636 4 месяца назад

I live in Ohio where gerrymandering means that a slight republican popular vote edge can still result in a supermajority for the republicans. The voters passed a anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment but the republican state supreme court took no action when the republicans ignored it. Do I live in a functioning democracy? You take for granted gerrymandering, corporate political spending and dark money (615 million in 2022 election alone). These are all the direct results of partisan supreme court decisions. All of those decisions increase the power of wealth and decrease the power of ordinary people. Should we take comfort in the probability that republican legislatures are minimizing minority influence because of partisan and not racist motives? The end result is the same, stomping on racial minorities with the republicans on the supreme court giving their blessings and instructing legislatures on how to get away with it.

@Cody-r5p 4 месяца назад

Then how do you explain the Alabama decision where SCOTUS clearly reprimanded the state for it.

@jem7636 4 месяца назад

@@Cody-r5p In the Alabama case, the republicans used the Purcell principle to let the racially biased districts stand for the 2022 election. In the 2023 term, 5 justices (3 liberals, Roberts and Kavanaugh) voted to uphold part of the VRA. Four of the republicans voted to finish off the VRA (part of it was struck down in Shelby County). I think some of the republicans upheld the VRA because that was the term they ended affirmative action. Politically having both anti-minority decisions in the same term would have drawn too much political heat. Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, talked about a time limit for VRA protections. When he thinks the time is right, he will finish off voting power for minorities.

@LMKMinn 4 месяца назад

If the Supreme Court ruled against partisan gerrymandering, the result would be that Congress would better represent the people. After that happened, each side would have the incentive to be more fair in the drawing of districts. If that happened, there would be fewer court cases. Also, it would be good for the US. In today's world, partisan gerrymandering locks in unfairness-perhaps, for generations. But today, Republicans benefit, and the court is partisan, so fairness is not a goal.

@ALISHAOVER 3 месяца назад

Republicans are not the only ones benefitting. Take a look at Oregon, for example. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project has consistently rated Oregon with an F, as our districts are highly skewed in favor of Democrats. Furthermore, the redistricting process here is secretive and non-transparent.