Interesting that this is a partisan 5-4 decision. I hope we'll see more of these commissions in the future. The way we draw districts in most states is shameful.
In reading about the decision, what strikes me the most interesting that Ruth Bader Ginsberg "writing for the majority" who basically questioned and redefined the term "legislature", is typical of the nine robed "oligarchy" that the SCOTUS has turned out to be in the last 80 years. Especially this judge who basically said, "I would not use the US Constitution as the blueprint for founding a new nation". She stated in reference to South Africa's constitution which has an "independent" judiciary" not accountable to the other branches of government. Her words were: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done." In other words, I really don't support the very Constitution that I am sworn to uphold "in my heart of hearts". This is hypocrisy at its apex and should disqualify Ms. Ginsberg or any other SCJ from serving. She, or anyone no matter who appointed them, should be impeached as the Constitution prescribes. For someone to swear an oath and then, in a "ruling sense" undermine and redefine the Constitution is unconscionable and should not be tolerated by the "people". Unfortunately, too many of the electorate is "ignorant" of the real intent, history, and defined prescriptions for resolution of "grievances”, and seeks to go with the way they personally "think or feel"; either of which is dangerous and undesirable. Whether you personally like the way states define voting districts is not the rule or the point. If you don’t like it, then go with the US Constitutional Amendment process; sorry if it is “hard”.
The people who would have to vote for an amendment, are the same people who gerrymandered the districts to keep themselves in power. When a system is not democratic, it is not possible to work within the system to achieve democracy.Whether you personally like the way states define voting districts is not the rule or the point. If you don’t like it, then go with the US Constitutional Amendment process; sorry if it is “hard”.
In reading about the decision, what strikes me the most interesting that Ruth Bader Ginsberg "writing for the majority" who basically questioned and redefined the term "legislature", is typical of the nine robed "oligarchy" that the SCOTUS has turned out to be in the last 80 years. Especially this judge who basically said, "I would not use the US Constitution as the blueprint for founding a new nation". She stated in reference to South Africa's constitution which has an "independent" judiciary" not accountable to the other branches of government. Her words were: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done." In other words, I really don't support the very Constitution that I am sworn to uphold "in my heart of hearts". This is hypocrisy at its apex and should disqualify Ms. Ginsberg or any other SCJ from serving. She, or anyone no matter who appointed them, should be impeached as the Constitution prescribes. For someone to swear an oath and then, in a "ruling sense" undermine and redefine the Constitution is unconscionable and should not be tolerated by the "people". Unfortunately, too many of the electorate is "ignorant" of the real intent, history, and defined prescriptions for resolution of "grievances”, and seeks to go with the way they personally "think or feel"; either of which is dangerous and undesirable. Whether you personally like the way states define voting districts is not the rule or the point. If you don’t like it, then go with the US Constitutional Amendment process; sorry if it is “hard”.
I'll delete mine. I think I accidentally used the mobile url anyway. Courts been on a roll. Was today their last day in session? I'm pretty sure NC is the most gerrymandered state in the country. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I think technically tomorrow is, but I don't know what other decisions they have left to announce. I think actually Pennsylvania has that title. They have had more democratic votes cast in recent elections, yet democrats hod something like 5 out of 18 seats. That's not democracy. MI is pretty bad, too. We have 5 dems out of 13 seats, and a majority of democratic voters.