No Meddling In Election, OK?

@Picklebobble2 The decision wasn't that partisan gerrymandering didn't exist, it was that the court didn't have a role in deciding how much was too much. So they recognize the Republicans have an unfair advantage, but are not willing to do anything to provide relief to voters that are adversely impacted.

@windinhishair But didn't say 'Altering the rules to give you an advantage is wrong' even though that's EXACTLY why they do it......So the court system should play no role in deciding to end unfair manipulation of the American form of 'democracy' ? That's how i read it.

@Picklebobble2 Essentially they ruled that the federal courts have no role in situations where gerrymandering is done for political advantage. Redistricting can still be challenged in state court systems, so the battle will shift there. Pennsylvania just had to redistrict because of a lawsuit in state court. But the federal courts still can intervene in situations where the redistricting is done to disenfranchise minorities. So what will happen there is that the gerrymandering will be done to enhance Republican voters (read this as white voters) and to hinder Democratic (read minority) voters, by just recasting racial gerrymandering (which is not allowed) as political gerrymandering (which is). In the end, the federal court system recognizes gerrymandering as unfair, but they are not going to take cases where it is said to be done for partisan purposes.

@windinhishair I think you get into very dangerous territory when your government is allowed to change rules without consent from either the electorate; elected officials or those representing the very essence of law.

@Picklebobble2 The Supreme Court under the Constitution decides which laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President (or by Congress after over-riding a presidential veto) are constitutional. They are supposed to be independent and rule solely on the law. This decision is the first time I can remember where the Supreme Court ruled that they didn't have the ability to decide when actions under a law (gerrymandering) goes too far. This sets a bad precedent in which there is no final federal arbiter on a legal issue. In fact, this point was brought up in the dissenting opinion in the 5-4 decision.

@windinhishair And sends the message that such behaviour is acceptable.

@Picklebobble2 Absolutely. The Court decided that a situation similar to North Carolina, where for the past four elections Republicans and Democrats have had roughly equal numbers of voters, yet Republicans get a 10-3 majority of the congressional seats, is fine from a federal perspective. That's obviously not how democracy is supposed to work, but the Supreme Court abdicated their responsibility by a single vote. The net result is that right now, Democrats need to win a 54-46% majority of the votes nationwide to end up with equal numbers of congressional seats. Republicans can get well less than half of the votes and have a big majority of the seats.

@windinhishair It's a nonsense isn't it.

@Picklebobble2 In every way. It also shows you just how unpopular Trump is, because the House went from a large majority of Republicans to a Democratic majority, despite the built-in big Republican advantage.