Who knows what kind of fuckwittery Alito and Scalia will brew up here:
The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”
The court’s ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.
The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.
A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.
The right wing of the court is so brazenly politicized that I have absolutely zero faith that they will rule in any way other than to entrench the rump of the country in political power and do what they can to neuter the votes of who they view as untermensch.
RP
John, you’re such a pessimist. Maybe they’ll come up with a reasoned way to thread the needle.
For example, they could rule that the brown ones can be counted, but only as 6/10’s of a Murkin.
Heck, there might even be a precedent somewhere that can be cited.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
What about kids who aren’t 18 now but will be before the next census? Do they count? Why not, they’ll be voters. Or is it the same as people moving in and out of the district over 10 years.
I see nothing good coming out of this.
srv
Democratic rules are whatever benefits my party.
You might as well say them immigrants are worth 3/5ths a vote.
Brachiator
Especially now that it has been officially added to the dictionary, WTF??
mkd
Always, always, the make up of the Supreme Court worries me more than the dynamic between the House and Congress. The decision of that body is so full of impact
Omnes Omnibus
It could also shift power to urban areas where the population doesn’t include a shitload of children.
Belafon
@srv: As well as all of those 10-17 year olds that will be eligible before the next census.
fuckwit
This is fucking scary. It has the potential to whip the rug right out from under us, just as the Citizens United and the 2010 Rethug gerrymandering of districts did to push the clock back on everything we’ve been working for.
It isn’t quite the Permanent Rethug Majority, but it’s a 20-year-plus Rethug majority. We won’t have a planet left by then.
So we’ll have already-gerrymandered congressional districts that are even further gerrymandered to discount further any urban and/or immigrant areas.
If this gets Citizens United, then the only hope is for the R’s to self-destruct in a huge cloud of dust. That’s not really a strategy since they may bring the whole country and indeed the world down with it.
Valdivia
what is the worst case scenario ruling?
Belafon
@Omnes Omnibus: Yep. If the ruling went something like “You must be eligible to vote in the election of the year the census is held,” then the suburbs around Dallas would lost a lot of voting power that would shift to Dallas. Suburbs are building a lot of schools because there are a lot of kids.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia: I don’t think that the plaintiffs have gamed out the possibilities here. Suburbs and exurbs with large populations (that include children who are not eligible voters) could lose to decadent urban enclaves where gays and other preverts predominate.
Valdivia
@Omnes Omnibus:
upvote for the libertines. sounds good to me.
FlipYrWhig
There are districts punching above their weight due to prisoners (non-voters) being counted as residents. This would end that practice.
The idea that your large population of children wouldn’t demand concomitant resources seems like a tough sell.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia: Co-sign.
fuckwit
@Omnes Omnibus: That’s OK, there are several groups of non-voting citizens: kids, immigrants, prisoners, ex-felons (hello, racism?), etc. Most prisons are in rural areas so cutting them out would undermine the R’s. Districts with lots of kids could be R in some places or D in others. But they’ll find a way not to do that. For example, the Roberts court could square the circle by including kids but not non-citizens or ex-felons. They could make it a neutron bomb that decimates D districts but keeps R districts intact. In fact, if there’s a pool my money is on them doing exactly that.
xenos
@Belafon: agreed. I don’t see the angle on this, aside from general shit-stirring in the hope that some sort of opportunity will arise from it.
Omnes Omnibus
@fuckwit: I am not making any predictions. I was just pointing out that it raises more complications than whether a district has a significant population of paperless residents.
Sometimes things are a bit more complicated than the way Cole presents them.
Villago Delenda Est
The 3/5 rule makes it ABUNDANTLY clear what the Founders intended. It’s raw population, not eligible voters, that is the basis for determining district sizes.
If “original intent” means ANYTHING at all, there is only one possible ruling here.
Valdivia (tablet)
Buenas noches guys y hasta mañana.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est: Dude, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments wiped out the 3/5 rule.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia (tablet): Noapte buna.
Brachiator
It seems perverse that the court would take this case. I look forward to the “original intent” gyrations that Scalia will dance over this one.
I presume that districts are based in some way one census numbers and political expediency. But this to me is a real number. “Eligible voters” is more variable. And children and prisoners are still citizens. Even immigrants, who have a stake in their communities and are eligible for government services, have a stake in the outcome of elections.
I’m just not seeing the hot necessity of the Court getting involved in this.
But…when would the decision be announced? Sometime in 2016? Hmmm.
The Main-Gauche of Mild Reason
I can’t possibly imagine how the supreme court could rule in favor of the plaintiffs, given the fact that rotten boroughs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs) and virtual representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation) were major issues motivating colonial independence. I mean, anyone with an 8th grade education knows this.
xenos
@fuckwit: wouldn’t this have the result of undermining a lot of hard-won GOP voter suppression? i thought the whole idea was to count the underpeople for representation purposes but to limit the vote, legally and practically, to one group. This proposed rule works against that.
Also, too, the biggest immigrant cities are in places unlikely to swing much. Maybe this is just about a maintaining GOP power in Texas and would not have much of an effect elsewhere.
Valdivia
@Omnes Omnibus: toi aussi
fuckwit
@Brachiator: I just hope Ms. Clinton has a 50-state, all-district strategy that attempts to mobilize voters in every district regardless of how red or blue it is. As insurance. Because, nobody knows what it’ll actually be after the court rules, probably just before people head to the polls in 2016.
burnspbesq
The procedural posture of the case is such that it should limit the damage the Supreme Court can do. What we have is an appeal from the District Court’s granting of the State’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. What that should mean is that the range of possible outcomes is limited to two: either the Supremes kill the case once and for all, or they vacate the district court’s order of dismissal and send it back for discovery and trial.
That said, there is a potentially loose end. Because the district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, it also “dismissed” (rather than denying) the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Supremes could (at least theoretically) overturn the dismissal for failure to state a claim AND grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, but the standard for summary judgment is sufficiently high (in order to get summary judgment, the moving party is supposed to show that (1) there are no disputed issues of material fact and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law) that it is almost unimaginable that the Supremes would do that.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
That’s funny. Based on Scalia’s concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich, there was only one possible ruling on the Commerce Clause issue in NFIB v. Sibelius, and it’s not the ruling that was actually handed down.
KG
I’m honestly amazed that this has made it to the Supremes. The Fourteenth Amendment is pretty straight forward:
If the opinion runs more than 2 pages, something went very, very wrong.
burnspbesq
Asshole Fifth Circuit strikes again.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf
Eric U.
if ex-felons don’t count, then prisoners shouldn’t count either. I live in Pennsyltucky, and there are a ridiculous number of prisons within my congressional district.
KG
@KG: one more thing, after doing a bit more research…
The Supreme Court just a couple of years ago ordered a case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that sought to force Congress to increase the number of House seats, Clemons v. Dept of Commerce. So it’s entirely likely the same result could happen here.
I just can’t see a way that this case actually results in anything but a “son, don’t be stupid” decision. Especially as burnspbesq points out, procedurally, there’s not much there, there.
James E Powell
@KG:
If the opinion runs more than 2 pages, something went very, very wrong.
Something did go wrong. In 2000, when the right-wing of the supreme court appointed a president who would be certain to perpetuate their dominance of the court for another generation.’
We should get used to blatantly political, right-wing decisions that roll back everything decent from the 20th century. It’s Roberts’s mission and Scalia’s reason for living.
Like Eric Alterman always says, thanks again Ralph (and the clueless morons who voted for you)
Mike J
@KG:
One of the arguments is that the number of undocumented people is estimated, not “counted.” That’s enough of an opening for five votes.
sharl
Sweet jeebus.
That photo is every bit as awful as its description notes.
Brachiator
@James E Powell: Well, we can’t entirely blame Ralph. Voter turnout was around 50 percent. Had more voted,the outcome might have been harder to steal.
Origuy
Several top FIFA officials have been arrested on corruption charges.
Mike J
@Origuy: On the one hand, nobody likes the US stepping in and trying to solve everyone else’s problems. On the other hand, nobody is going to be the least bit upset if Sepp Blatter gets waterboarded.
In other sports news, first club race of the year tonight. Used a 20 year old leaky boat, smoked the two new high tech speedsters the club just bought. It ain’t the boat that wins the race. Mwahahahahaha. (I picked the other end of the line from everyone else and was right, and had a close finish that should have been a gimme if I hadn’t gybed too early.)
TriassicSands
Scalia, one of history’s great phonies, will rule in a way that favors the Republican Party. He will concoct some fanciful explanation for why the Constitution compels him to rule that way, but in the end, Scalia is thoroughly corrupt.
@Villago Delenda Est:
Ah, but “original intent,” like every other excuse Scalia (et al.) uses to justify his votes, doesn’t mean anything — at least, nothing beyond being a concocted justification for Scalia to use to try to secure the political and/or social outcome he wants.
The only thing that Scalia might have in shorter supply than integrity is shame; though, in reality, both score a solid zero out to several decimal places.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes, as to counting those persons as 3/5ths of a person is concerned. But it’s clear that they WERE to be included in the numbers. The slaveholders INSISTED on it, because if the number were only to be of “eligible voters”, then they were screwed as far as representation in the House was concerned. That’s why they had a 3/5th rule in the first place.
Which means, as reiterated in 14th Amendment, that if persons are counted (that is, included in the census) then they’re to be represented.
Villago Delenda Est
@TriassicSands: Well, clearly then “ORIGINAL INTENT” means absolutely nothing, and Scalia has all the intellectual honesty of Joseph Goebbles.
joel hanes
@Mike J:
Few things are as much fun as successfully pulling off a port-tack start.
Especially if the lead starboard-tack boat misses your stern by a matter of inches.
craigie
Somehow, that doesn’t make me feel any better.
Mary G
This is why I get more and more enthused about Hillary. Say what you will about her, she won’t appoint Supremes that will go for this crap.
fuckwit
@Mike J: Nah, but counted is the census. It counts people. And that’s what determines the size of the district.
Actually, I retract my earlier worry. That 14th Amendment is pretty goddamned clear and unambiguous. I’m still not 100% certain the Roberts SCOTUS will not find a way to turn this to shit, and I’m damn certain that Scalia’s dissent if he loses will be an orange-level butthurt alert, but if that’s what the Constitution says then I’m confused why they agreed to hear this at all. Maybe I should re-read burnspeq’s excellent answer again.
Morzer
I suppose it’s possible that Nino’s tarantella on this one will just get faster and faster and faster until he’s dancing it with burning shoes, then burning ankles.. and ultimately there’ll be a small grease-spot formerly known as Injustice Scalia.
Mike J
@joel hanes: We did in fact start port tack. I was more concerned about where the wind was than where the other boats were, and we just slid though. I was lucky to grab a good crew. A beginner who had never been out of our protective lagoon and into the middle of the lake, but he actually understood stuff, just needs more tiller time. Since I spent the weekend coaching even newer newbies (who never been in a boat before) it was a refreshing change.
@fuckwit: I didn’t say the counted v estimated argument made any sense, merely that I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will be on it without even thinking, and getting to five won’t be surprising. The supreme court has very little to do with law, they’re just another political faction.
I will admit I like reading Scalia’s dissents. The man can turn a phrase when he wants to, and when he’s in dissent it’s usually good for the United States.
Chris T.
Clearly they’ll decide that since corporations are people and money is speech, the correct answer is “one dollar is one vote”…
Botsplainer
In the movie about this case, I hope Samuel L Jackson plays Clarence Thomas.
He won’t even have to study for it – he can simply restate his lines from Django.
Zinsky
@Chris T.: I fear Chris T. may be right. These sphincters act like democracy is just an annoyance to their narrow-missed, fascist agenda. Very scary.
Citizen Alan
@James E Powell:
Blame Ralph for Iraq if you want, but this ignorant bit of petulance ignores the fact that Roberts and Alito were appointed in Bush’s SECOND term. The one he got after the Democrats insisted on nominating a “war hero” who was then unwilling and/or unable to defend his war record against people willing to call him a lying coward on national TV.
raven
@Citizen Alan: He wasn’t unable he was unwilling.
Eric S.
I’m not sure that victory will get the plaintiffs what they want. Just thinking about the Chicago area here, a lot of immigrants are in the suburbs that vote predominantly Republican. I think you’d find similar situations in many rural areas with labor intensive food production. I could be wrong but even from a strictly immigration standpoint this may not be quite the unmitigated victory they think it would be.
Botsplainer
@Citizen Alan:
Dude was practically French, and he had a lot of money, which made him an elitist.
Botsplainer
@Eric S.:
Depends on who is doing the counting.
satby
@raven: I think Kerry just assumed facts would matter and he would prevail on that. In a sane society, facts would matter, but we live in the USA.
JPL
@satby: I think you are correct. Kerry assumed the media would report the facts rather than gossip about him drinking green tea.
dmsilev
Speaking of corrupt bastards, apparently DOJ just extradited a whole bunch of FIFA executives on corruption and bribery charges. Swiss police arrested them at a FIFA meeting at some fancy Zurich hotel.
Got to love the headline the Times used: “FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Sepp Blatter Isn’t Among Them”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/sports/soccer/fifa-officials-arrested-on-corruption-charges-blatter-isnt-among-them.html
danielx
Occasionally a scribe/pundit/columnist/Villager blunders and accidentally blurts out the truth. So with today’s WaPo column by Kathleen Parker regarding Bloody Bill Kristol’s new found distaste for baby boomer presidents, in which she notes:
<blockquote>I don’t usually single out other commentators, but I’m making an exception — not because I’m a woman, or a boomer, or a Hillary Clinton supporter (though Kristol makes me want to be one), but because despite being wrong about most everything, he remains an influential voice in politics.
Bill Kristol, an-always-wrong-but-never-uncertain, self-loathing, boomer doucherocket? Say it ain’t so….
OzarkHillbilly
@danielx: Heh. I especially liked this:
Kristol lavishly praises the Greatest Generation. Who doesn’t? I liked them, too, but I just called them my parents.
Iowa Old Lady
@Villago Delenda Est: For that matter, women were counted.
But Bush v Gore and Hobby Lobby taught me that anything can happen.
raven
@JPL: Kerry made a stupid calculation not to fight from the start.
SFAW
@Omnes Omnibus:
What’s interesting/scary is that, when I saw that, I says to meself “What is that, Romanian?”
Of which I do not speak a word. It’s like a combination of cluelessness and dead-on accuracy. Maybe I can have a steel-cage match with Jim Hoft to settle things.
Well, except for the accuracy part. The day he’s accurate about anything is the day my hair grows back, and I become good-looking. So we’re safe.
dubo
“The media isn’t falling for our lies about the ‘crisis’ of voter registration fraud anymore”
“Well what can we do to make voter registration fraud more consequential AND motivate districts to commit astronomical amounts of voter registration fraud?”
SFAW
@Citizen Alan:
Which would not have happened if he had not “won” a first term, I’m guessing. Or would he have beaten President Gore in a rematch?
@Botsplainer:
AND Jooish to boot. How can you trust someone like that?
gene108
I normally do not root for injuries, but I wish something happens to one of the right-wing justices and we can flip the balance of the court.
I just have a sinking feeling Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas are going to live forever, because only the good die young and they are anything but good.
It’ll probably be the 2024 or 2028 election before any of those three get old enough to step down or bite the big one.
EDIT: I know Scalia and Kennedy are pushing 80, but given the medical attention they just receive, I do not see them dying or retiring for at least another 10 years.
SFAW
@burnspbesq:
After seeing how this Court has ruled on various issues, the “unimaginable” is no longer so. And, given Scalia’s apparent disconnect from reality (vis-a-vis his arguments, the “facts” he uses in his votes), I am less than sanguine that justice truly exists with this Court.
danielx
@SFAW:
That would be a large fuckin’ yes, given Fat Tony’s blatherings on “police professionalism” and other real world topics of which he knows precisely nothing.
rikyrah
I’m gonna put it bluntly:
THEY WANNA RETURN TO THE DAYS WHEN ONLY WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS VOTED.
PERIOD.
They have NEVER been interested in little-d DEMOCRACY.
NEVER!!!
jonp72
I saw Antonin Scalia give a speech at Brown University in the early 1990s when I was an undergrad there. I asked him point blank, face-to-face if he thought Baker vs. Carr was wrongly decided. (Baker vs. Carr was the “one man one vote” case. Scalia offered to give his opinions on cases he thought were wrongly decided.) Scalia told me to my face that he thought Baker vs. Carr was wrongly decided. I doubt he has “evolved” since then. This is not good at all.
Tractarian
Entrench sorta rhymes with untermensch!
James E Powell
@fuckwit:
That 14th Amendment is pretty goddamned clear and unambiguous.
So is the 15th amendment, but see Shelby County v. Holder.
Bill Murray
@SFAW: Nader was at most the fourth biggest reason Gore lost. Why you want to focus on the ~10,000 votes Nader “cost” Gore rather than the corrupt Supreme Court (infinite number of votes), corrupt state officials (hard to tell but probably 50,000 to 200,000) and corrupt local officials (probably 30,000 votes) and the ~150,000 Democrats that voted for Clinton in 1996 but Bush in 2000 is I guess your business but usually innumeracy and not wanting people to vote for whom they want are reserved for the Republicans.
tones
@Brachiator:
And the little factoid that Gore actually WON.