Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 06, 2018

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a Republican effort to halt a required redrawing of the state's 18 congressional districts before the year's midterm elections. That is a very big deal. Here's why. Republicans have controlled the line-drawing process in Pennsylvania for the last two decades. That control has created a congressional map that heavily favors Republicans -- they control 13 seats to the Democrats' five -- despite the fact that the state is a Democratic leaning one. (Before Trump carried Pennsylvania in 2016, George H.W. Bush in 1988 was the last GOP presidential candidate to win the state.) Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the map was drawn primarily for political purposes -- and, therefore, violated the state's constitution. The state Supreme Court ordered the state legislature, which is still controlled by Republicans, to make a new map for the 2018 election -- and have it approved by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Justice Alito's denial of the stay in the Pa Congressional redistricting case is a reminder that it is NOT all partisan politics at the Court. If it were, surely J. Alito would have ruled to help Republicans in their Pa House races in 2018.
electionlawblog.org

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-05 09:30 PM | Reply

"NOT all"

I guess we should be thankful for small favors.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-05 09:36 PM | Reply

#1

Come on, et al, you know better than to bust the "SCOTUS is a tool of the GOP" narrative, how dare you inject pesky facts into the mix.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-05 11:18 PM | Reply

"Justice Alito's denial of the stay in the Pa Congressional redistricting case is a reminder that it is NOT all partisan politics at the Court."

Translation: The gerrymandering was so extreme even Alito couldn't pretend anymore.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-05 11:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 11

#4

Translation of the translation: I will make this partisan no matter how hard I have to pretzel myself.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:22 AM | Reply

"I will make this partisan no matter how hard I have to pretzel myself."

You're joking, right? What's your take on the reason Alito denied the stay?

Was he trying to show he could cater to the Democrats, or did he rule based on the facts of the matter?

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 12:26 AM | Reply

He ruled on the facts of the matter, you are the one trying to make it partisan.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:32 AM | Reply

What's your take on the reason Alito denied the stay?

If you paid attention you wouldn't have to ask. The case went off on state constitutional grounds. The USSC, except in rare instances, has zero interest in such cases. This was a Hail Mary that failed like Brady's. It had nothing to do with the degree of the gerrymander and everything to do with federalism.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-06 12:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It had nothing to do with the degree of the gerrymander and everything to do with federalism."

And on what issue did Alito feel the need to embrace federalism? Oh, right...gerrymandering.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 05:59 AM | Reply

"you are the one trying to make it partisan."

Reread the first entry as many times as it takes to discover when partisanship was raised.

RIF.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 06:01 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Gerrymandering is partisanship in the extreme.

#11 | Posted by cbob at 2018-02-06 10:01 AM | Reply

I'll be honest, I was happily surprised when the SC threw out the GOP appeal. But then, as I have expressed here before, our partisan court does operate fairly occasionally because they are a political operation which needs to periodically appear otherwise. As I predicted they did this on Obamacare though they allowed states to opt out of Medicaid expansion which prevented millions from getting needed healthcare and caused thousands of deaths. But, I figured that's what they would do because they needed to throw a bone to the Democrats after deciding things like Citizens United, etc. They probably figured too that the Republicans would be more effective at overturning the basic law behind ACA.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-06 10:04 AM | Reply

So NOW the PA Gross Old Pedophiles are trying to IMPEACH their own supreme court. What a bunch of snowflake sore losers. If they believed their ideas were better or more popular, they would be unafraid of a fair contest, but they know that people are figuring out that they stand with the oligarchs and Russia over the middle class and America.

#13 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2018-02-06 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Come on, et al, you know better than to bust the "SCOTUS is a tool of the GOP" narrative, how dare you inject pesky facts into the mix.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter

Oh please, the right screams about "librul activism" when there's a decision they don't like either.

Both sides are guilty of questioning the legitimacy of the justice system when it suits their purpose.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-06 12:03 PM | Reply

Reread the first entry as many times as it takes to discover when partisanship was raised.

Having a hard time understanding the phrase "it is NOT all partisan politics at the Court" are you?

Maybe you need to join Snoofy and Indy with their Reading Comprehension Tutor today.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:17 PM | Reply

Both sides are guilty of questioning the legitimacy of the justice system when it suits their purpose.

I don't disagree, but after all, this is a liberal blog and as shown by Danforth, my point stands.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:18 PM | Reply

How can Danforth say it's partisan when the appointee of President Obama was treated so fairly by Mitch McConnell? His actions at that time demonstrated to everyone that he wanted a purely partisan majority in place and that is what he got. Don't ever try to pretend again that the conservative majority on the court is not a partisan majority designed to further the Republican agenda. It would just be too laughable to see anyone actually try to sell that idea today.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-06 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And to further underscore my point, up steps Danni with her usual hyper-partisan take.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Danni, what McConnell did was wrong, Merrick Garland deserved a hearing and a vote. That was partisan politics and how the Supreme Court appointment process works, like it or not and regardless of party.

This thread is about what Alito did in not approving the stay, which as I pointed out earlier, was an analysis of the merits on the case. SCOTUS rarely interferes with rulings of a State Supreme Court, especially over a state process like re-districting, which is the point of et al's article when it said that "it is clear that Alito wasn't convinced."

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:28 PM | Reply

"This thread is about what Alito did in not approving the stay, which as I pointed out earlier, was an analysis of the merits on the case. "

As I have said previously, occasionally Roberts, Alito or Kennedy may make a decision which seems to benefit Democrats. IT's a measured response designed to mask the overall right wing bent of the court with things like CU which is totally polluting politics with big money, corporate personhood doing the same thing. So they throw a meaningless bone to the other side occasionally but they are still a political operation. That is my sincere belief. The SC is totally partisan and corrupt and have ruined our struggling democracy. Come on, Paul Ryan received $500,000 immediately after passing the tax cut. They don't even try to disguise it any more.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-06 12:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"NOT all partisan politics at the Court."

Is an emphasis on this ruling being an reception to the usual... RightofNever's whining notwithstanding.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This isn't right. The courts should not be getting involved in political issues. After all, if we can't cheat, how are we supposed to win? - The GOP

#22 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-06 01:27 PM | Reply

#21

Typically, #angryaginghippy leaves out the remainder of the excerpt "If it were, surely J. Alito would have ruled to help Republicans in their Pa House races in 2018."

He did the right thing, yet the partisans can't accept it.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 01:43 PM | Reply

Well....there goes every repug congress critter in PA.

#24 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 02:04 PM | Reply

It seems obvious when the majority of votes are D and the majority of reps are R, that something is wrong.

#25 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-06 02:30 PM | Reply

How can Danforth say it's partisan when the appointee of President Obama was treated so fairly by Mitch McConnell?
#17 | POSTED BY DANNI

up steps Danni with her usual hyper-partisan take.
#18 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

At least RoC finally admits he believes objective facts are for leftist hyper-partisans.

#26 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-06 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#25

Not sure how you managed to make that illogical leap, Indy, but that is what makes you such an easy target.

Keep up the, umm, work.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 11:42 AM | Reply

"up steps Danni with her usual hyper-partisan take."

It's hyperpartisan to mention that Paul Ryan received campaign donations from the Koch brothers in the amount of $500,000 immediately after passing tax cuts that benefited the Koch brothers immensely. Far from hyperpartisan, that's just a fact that most taxpayers should be aware of.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-07 11:48 AM | Reply

It's hyper-partisan because that has nothing to do with SCOTUS.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 11:52 AM | Reply

This is hyper-partisan:

As I have said previously, occasionally Roberts, Alito or Kennedy may make a decision which seems to benefit Democrats. IT's a measured response designed to mask the overall right wing bent of the court with things like CU which is totally polluting politics with big money, corporate personhood doing the same thing. So they throw a meaningless bone to the other side occasionally but they are still a political operation. That is my sincere belief. The SC is totally partisan and corrupt and have ruined our struggling democracy

What I've observed over the years is you evaluate SCOTUS rulings based solely on political outcome. If a majority opinion delivers a desired outcome, it's proof positive that SCOTUS is doing its job. I can't recall you ever making a legal or constitutional argument when it comes to SCOTUS rulings.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 11:55 AM | Reply

"I can't recall you ever making a legal or constitutional argument when it comes to SCOTUS rulings."

I do it all the time. Find corporate personhood in the Constitution. Explain which of the founders believed corporations are people. Tell me that the concept is not diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the founders. Furthermore, demonstrate how corporate personhood does not corrupt our democracy.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-07 12:27 PM | Reply

I do it all the time. '

I've yet to see it.

Find corporate personhood in the Constitution.

That ain't an argument either. For example, find a right to vote, to privacy, to travel, to an abortion in the constitution.

I've asked before and have yet to get an answer. Where along the continuum of business entities does the entity lose it's identity with person[s] that make up the entity.

Surely a proprietorship is the person. What if that person decides to become a partnership of two? A partnership of three? What if the three decide to incorporate? What if the three decide to take the corporation public? Where and why is the line drawn that separates the person from the entity?

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 02:25 PM | Reply

"Where along the continuum of business entities does the entity lose it's identity with person[s] that make up the entity."

At inception, because it's a separate legal entity.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:13 PM | Reply

Same way a "baby" is a separate legal entity from its "mother" at birth, but not before.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:14 PM | Reply

At inception, because it's a separate legal entity.

Not in every context. Take a LLC, for example, it is a collection of its members, and in certain circumstances (LLC citizenship for diversity jurisdiction and accredited investing are two that immediately pop to mind) the identity of the members is more important than the entity itself. Similar types of distinctions can be made for S Corporations, Master Limited Partnerships and smaller REITs.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 08:35 PM | Reply

Well then. Pennsylvania just needs to re-fashion itself as a LLC, and they can Gerrymander all they want!

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:37 PM | Reply

Denying corporations personhood rights does not deny the owners their personhood rights.

#37 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-07 08:54 PM | Reply

"It had nothing to do with the degree of the gerrymander and everything to do with federalism."

So, it wasn't about the the degree of gerrymandering that drove the decision but rather that the scotus felt no need to overrule the state courts decision.

IOW, if the 13-5 edge held by the GOP were only 10-8 and the state court still ruled it had to be redrawn, the GOPs appeal would still have been rejected?

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 08:57 PM | Reply

Denying corporations personhood rights does not deny the owners their personhood rights.

What if the corporation's business is issue advocacy and there is only one shareholder, its president who identifies with the issues.

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 09:27 PM | Reply

#38 | Posted by eberly

Yes.

#40 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 09:30 PM | Reply

#35 you cite certain circumstances, but what's the answer for the general circumstance?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 10:02 PM | Reply

"What if the corporation's business is issue advocacy and there is only one shareholder, its president who identifies with the issues."

I don't understand the legal issue being raised.
Hopefully this follow-on explains why:
What if the issue being advocated is murder, and he leads by example and murders someone?
So, it's not clear what you're suggesting. Can we only charge the company with murder or something?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 10:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort