How can an honest court ever say that a racial or political gerrymander is acceptable?
Our American “founding fathers,” people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, tried their best to create an honest and fair government when they declared independence from England and wrote our Constitution. They didn’t want us to be ruled by a king or dictator. They wanted separation between church and state, helping citizens to be able to choose their religion without persecution from other religions.
In the Citizens United decision in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that big corporations and the super rich could spend unlimited amounts of money buying politicians and legislation to benefit their interests, unfettered by campaign finance laws meant to empower ordinary people. In the Rucho v. Common Cause case in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering should be addressed by legislative instead of judicial remedies. But why would legislative people fix a problem that they themselves created? I believe the current majority on the Supreme Court is supporting gerrymandering because they know it benefits Republican-controlled states much more often than Democrat-controlled states. Either way, I believe it is extremely undemocratic and should be illegal.
Most recently, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a gerrymander described as racial in South Carolina was political instead and refused to fix it when, in fact, it was both. They said it was OK because it was a political gerrymander. How can an honest court ever say that a racialIn December 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the U.S.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Concerns About the Supreme CourtAlmost immediately after announcing he would not seek another term, President Biden pronounced that reforming the Supreme Court was going to be a major priority of his remaining six months in office.
Read more »
Public opinion of new justices affects views on entire Supreme CourtA new study finds that the extent to which U.S. adults support newly appointed justices to the Supreme Court strongly influences the extent to which they support the high court as an institution.
Read more »
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defends strong Idaho abortion dissent: 'I had a difference of opinion'Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defended her dissenting opinion in an Idaho abortion case.
Read more »
Alaska Supreme Court affirms Ranked-Choice decision made by superior courtThe Alaska Supreme Court has affirmed a previous decision made by lower courts to let a ballot measure to repeal Ranked-Choice voting remain on the ballot.
Read more »
Mass. high court strikes down 67-year-old switchblade ban, citing Supreme Court gun decisionResidents of Massachusetts are now free to arm themselves with switchblades after a 67-year-old restriction was struck down following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark decision on gun rights and the Second Amendment.
Read more »
Alabama Supreme Court affirms lower court rulings in Roy Moore's defamation lawsuitMoore sued five people over what he said were false and malicious allegations intended to damage his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2017.
Read more »