What a bullshit and completely inaccurate headline.
You know, I wish these groups that filed lawsuits to fix gerrymandering in PA would do the same in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Using Liberallogic (TM) as it was applied in PA :
Connecticut was a 54 - 40 Clinton win yet there are zero Rs representing Conn. in the US House. With a total of 5 seats, shouldn’t the Rs get at least 2 seats?
Mass. was a 60 - 32 split for Clinton yet there are zero Rs representing Mass. in the House. With a total of 9 seats in Mass, shouldn’t the Rs get +3 Reps to be fair?
I think the liberals are going to go all in for the House this year ... I doubt they’ll fund their Senate races ... it seems like the House or bust for the Dems.
I really hope the idiots in the GOP get their act together since we have a lot of opportunities to offset the black robe tyrant induced losses by picking up seats in places like Minnesota.
The Dems are going to use their 2006 textbook to win back the House (the Lamb race makes that crystal clear). The GOP has to get these challengers on the record “dissing their masters” in the Dem party and play the heck out of their quotes in the bluer “progressive” (regressive) parts of their districts ... cause chaos on their side in the primaries and drag the angst out until Election Day.
Point blank ask the self-described “progressives” if they don’t mind the Democratic Party becoming more Conservative and supporting parts of the Trump platform. A message/strategy like that could have kicked enough votes out of the Lamb column last week.
That’s a far better strategy than the idiotic Rove-esque “strategry” that will allow the Dems to lie their way into holding the House while the Rs play a prevent style defense.
What a convoluted bunch of legal issues. Apparently the democrat minority in the state legislature did have standing to sue in state court because they don’t like the old map of congressional districts, but a minority of Republicans didn’t have standing to sue in federal court over the issue of state courts seizing power from the state legislature. This means now that state supreme courts can draw up legislative districts against the votes of the people’s elected representatives if the state supreme courts decide to do that. This is more unconstitutional seizure of power by the judiciary.
I don’t fully understand why the federal courts think this isn’t a serious issue worth serious consideration. I get the feeling that the federal courts and the SCOTUS have more respect for the judgment of state courts than the judgment of state legislatures. This is still more judicial arrogance in which the judges in black robes once again assume they’re wiser than the voters and their elected representatives. I do not concur with the judges in black robes on this legal issue.
Bump
So an opposing political party challenging the way districts are drawn didn’t have standing? Then I guess nobody has standing and laws can be imposed with impunity.
So, is the redistricting now going to be solely a function of the judiciary in that and other states now?