RSN Fundraising Banner
FOCUS: 'Tragically Wrong': 6 Brutal Lines from Justice Kagan's Gerrymandering Dissent
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48830"><span class="small">Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Thursday, 27 June 2019 10:51

Kroll writes: "The Supreme Court’s five conservatives ruled Thursday that federal courts have no role to play in striking down politically rigged congressional maps that deny equal representations to citizens of a given state."

Associate Justice Elena Kagan poses in the official group photo at the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)
Associate Justice Elena Kagan poses in the official group photo at the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)


'Tragically Wrong': 6 Brutal Lines from Justice Kagan's Gerrymandering Dissent

By Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone

27 June 19


The liberal justice blasted the Supreme Court’s conservatives for abdicating their duty and putting American democracy in danger

he Supreme Court’s five conservatives ruled Thursday that federal courts have no role to play in striking down politically rigged congressional maps that deny equal representations to citizens of a given state. The court’s majority opinion, responding to two lawsuits challenging gerrymandered maps in Maryland and North Carolina, effectively punted, saying there is no standard to decide such cases. The decision is a serious blow to voting rights groups who had hoped the high court would step in and set a precedent on the issue of gerrymandering.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s four liberals, blasted the five conservative justices. She accused them of abdicating their duties with a “tragically wrong” decision that would have disastrous consequences for American democracy. Here are six of the most blistering lines from Kagan’s dissent:

  • “The majority’s abdication comes just when courts across the country, including those below, have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims.”

  • “Maybe the majority errs in these cases because it pays so little attention to the constitutional harms at their core. After dutifully reciting each case’s facts, the majority leaves them forever behind, instead immersing itself in everything that could conceivably go amiss if courts became involved.”

  • “The majority’s idea instead seems to be that if we have lived with partisan gerrymanders so long, we will survive. That complacency has no cause. Yes, partisan gerrymandering goes back to the Republic’s earliest days. (As does vociferous opposition to it.) But big data and modern technology—of just the kind that the mapmakers in North Carolina and Maryland used—make today’s gerrymandering altogether different from the crude line-drawing of the past.”

  • “For the first time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares that it can do nothing about an acknowledged constitutional violation because it has searched high and low and cannot find a workable legal standard to apply.”

  • “[I]n throwing up its hands, the majority misses something under its nose: What it says can’t be done has been done. Over the past several years, federal courts across the country—including, but not exclusively, in the decisions below—have largely converged on a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims (striking down both Democratic and Republican districting plans in the process).”

  • “Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”

You can read the majority’s opinion and Kagan’s dissent here.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+50 # BetaTheta 2019-06-27 14:26
Chalk this one up with Dredd Scott and Citizens United as another SCOTUS travesty.
 
 
+46 # margefromtn 2019-06-27 14:53
She is a hero.
 
 
+19 # revhen 2019-06-27 20:35
The old, white men paranoia rules! Must defend their privilege! Now, I'm old and white but I also believe in true democracy. The fear of the tyranny of the majority which the Constitution is concerned with has spawned the tyranny of the minority.
 
 
+18 # randrjwr 2019-06-27 23:46
Another SCOTUS travesty to go along with "Citizens United."
 
 
+7 # Salus Populi 2019-06-29 16:35
Somehow I can't help but feel that if it was a largely Democratic Party activity at issue -- Maryland is the sole current example, and that only in one district, while Republicans in at least a dozen states have used extreme gerrymandering to cement their unpopular reps in power fro life -- the Court would have found the rationales and "workable legal standard" to re-even the playing field.
 
 
+1 # Jim Rocket 2019-07-04 15:04
It's not just how you feel. It's what those judges were put there to do. Read Professor McLean's "Democracy in Chains" and you will see that gerrymandering is a deliberate, organized plan to reduce democracy in America. The five justices likely agree with everything Kagan wrote. It's not that they don't understand what they're doing it is, like I said, exactly what they were put there to do. Sad!