Justices seem divided in key case about partisan districts

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, thought by many court watchers to be the deciding vote in the case, gave few clues to his thinking during the arguments.

Every day, federal judges must pass on exquisitely intricate arguments in patent cases and on the admissibility of expert testimony in a wide variety of technical fields.

That effort will require an amendment to the state constitution, a lengthy process that involves passing the Legislature in two separate sessions prior to a voter referendum.

Naturally, the plaintiffs would never admit that that’s the heart of the matter, but the case really stems from Democrats’ frustration at having lost power in so many states since 2010. The legislature could draw lines that give Republicans 60 percent in each district, or it could draw lines that give Republicans 100 percent in three districts while Democrats get 100 percent in two districts. And that has nothing to do with partisan gerrymandering.

If Kennedy joins the liberal justices in striking down the Wisconsin map, the precedent could affect about one-third of all districts drawn for Congress and state legislatures.

The Centre had, in March, also said that public figures, including politicians, can not be refrained from commenting on acts of crime because it would affect their right to free speech and expression.

“Moving forward on the litigation, moving forward on the legislative reform, it’s a whole scale effort to make sure that votes are counted fairly in Pennsylvania”, Almeida said. Sotomayor asked how political gerrymander “helps our system of government”. “What is new is that with computers, with programs, you can be much more creative in drawing those lines”. At the same time, the Justices recognized that it was hard to craft a solution to the problem; Chief Justice John Roberts was especially wary of asking the courts to use “sociological gobbledygook” to weigh the propriety of district lines.

Three members of the court’s conservative bloc – Alito, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts Jr., the chief justice – were searching for reasons not to intervene.

The issue of partisan gerrymandering is also before the U.S. Supreme Court right now and could have an influence on the Pennsylvania case.

He said the “main problem” for him was that if the court stepped in, other claims from across the country, “every one”, would come to the court. Tuesday’s arguments will illustrate why Wisconsin warns about a “social science hodgepodge”.

That’s because studies show, lawyer Daniel Ortiz told the court, that 55 percent of employment contracts covering non-union workers force individual workers to take disputes to arbitration and 23 percent of those pacts ban class actions, too. We will update you when the Supreme Court issues its opinion, and provide further guidance at that time. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.

Murphy replied there will always be voters in districts “where they know what the result is going to be”.

If your question is followed by a long pause, you’ll have your answer.

Justice Stephen Breyer said the case involved more than just arbitration. The question: Are extreme partisan gerrymanders violations of either the equal protection clause or possibly the First Amendment? This week, the court heard a case from Wisconsin where Democratic voters sued after Republicans drew political maps in 2011 that Democrats say entrenched the GOP’s hold on power in a state that is essentially evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Inside, the future of American politics could be changed forever.

Wisconsin’s case is unusual because it could result in a ruling that applies nationwide. But the majority of the most obnoxiously gerrymandered states – including Wisconsin, where the case of Gill v. Whitford originated – are controlled by Republicans.

After listening to the explanation – that voters were packed into districts to deprive them of party competition statewide, “The intelligent man on the street is going to say that’s a bunch of baloney”.

Former President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder have both taken up the cause. So, for example, one of the other factors is going to be whether a map was drawn with partisan intent. “The Court that decided Shelby County and Citizens United along party/ideological lines is looked at by the intelligent woman (or man) on the street as the product of a highly ideological politicized Court”. He said little during Tuesday’s argument to indicate how he would vote.