The Republican justices have already signaled that they probably won’t strike down California’s maps
In fairness to the Court’s Republicans, they did suggest in their LULAC opinion that the Texas and California gerrymanders are mirror images of each other. The majority opinion in that case begins with the observation that after Texas drew its new map, “California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican, also wrote a separate opinion stating that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
The thing about the SCOTUS is that they’re not total dummies. Roberts and Gorsuch, at least, seem to know the long game and aren’t interested in playing full-on Calvinball with the tool of court precedent. They aren’t going to gamble on an entrenched multi-generational procedurally generated conservative majority just to save a few California GOP House Reps who are likely washed in a D+10 mid year election anyway.
They’ll uphold the right of states to gerrymander and allow Republicans to turn the ratchet in another reactionary backwash election, once Dems fumble the bag in '28/'30. Because the important thing is undermining the function of democracy long term.
Roberts and Gorsuch, at least, seem to know the long game and aren’t interested in playing full-on Calvinball with the tool of court precedent
Gorsuch voted to overturn Roe which was a fairly epic disrespect for court precedent.
In the end I think you’re right that gerrymandering benefits republicans more so they will continue to allow it. But I no longer put anything past this SCOTUS.
As ACB said “we’re not just a bunch of hacks in here.” And if she said it, you know it’s not true.
Gorsuch voted to overturn Roe which was a fairly epic disrespect for court precedent.
Gorsuch had a long history on the bench as anti-choice. He overturned a 50 year old precedent, not one he’d just co-signed last year.
But I no longer put anything past this SCOTUS.
There’s more to the judiciary than just issuing rulings on a whim. They need the lower courts to line up behind them. And conflicting decisions at the highest level ultimately allow lower courts to rule at their own whim rather than according to a supreme precedent.
Imagine the SCOTUS ruling against California and sending it back down to a liberal California appellate court, only for the lower court to disregard the SCOTUS California ruling by referencing the Texas SCOTUS ruling. Or for the lower court or the state to feign confusion and refuse to follow the SC decision. Or do what so many other states have done and hastily engineer a new map that’s just different enough to force a new case. Without some kind of bright line distinction between the two decisions, they could just do that and send it back up to SCOTUS in a case that wouldn’t resolve before the next election.
As ACB said “we’re not just a bunch of hacks in here.”
If you’ve got to say shit like that out loud…
But she’s not wrong. These aren’t celebrity hacks who came in on the reality TV circuit, they’re legal street fighters who know how the system works in practice. If they do rule against California, it’ll be curious to see how they try to thread the needle. And how the California legislature - which still has plenty of time to submit revised (but still gerrymandered) maps - chooses to respond.
The thing about the SCOTUS is that they’re not total dummies. Roberts and Gorsuch, at least, seem to know the long game and aren’t interested in playing full-on Calvinball with the tool of court precedent. They aren’t going to gamble on an entrenched multi-generational procedurally generated conservative majority just to save a few California GOP House Reps who are likely washed in a D+10 mid year election anyway.
They’ll uphold the right of states to gerrymander and allow Republicans to turn the ratchet in another reactionary backwash election, once Dems fumble the bag in '28/'30. Because the important thing is undermining the function of democracy long term.
Gorsuch voted to overturn Roe which was a fairly epic disrespect for court precedent.
In the end I think you’re right that gerrymandering benefits republicans more so they will continue to allow it. But I no longer put anything past this SCOTUS.
As ACB said “we’re not just a bunch of hacks in here.” And if she said it, you know it’s not true.
Gorsuch had a long history on the bench as anti-choice. He overturned a 50 year old precedent, not one he’d just co-signed last year.
There’s more to the judiciary than just issuing rulings on a whim. They need the lower courts to line up behind them. And conflicting decisions at the highest level ultimately allow lower courts to rule at their own whim rather than according to a supreme precedent.
Imagine the SCOTUS ruling against California and sending it back down to a liberal California appellate court, only for the lower court to disregard the SCOTUS California ruling by referencing the Texas SCOTUS ruling. Or for the lower court or the state to feign confusion and refuse to follow the SC decision. Or do what so many other states have done and hastily engineer a new map that’s just different enough to force a new case. Without some kind of bright line distinction between the two decisions, they could just do that and send it back up to SCOTUS in a case that wouldn’t resolve before the next election.
If you’ve got to say shit like that out loud…
But she’s not wrong. These aren’t celebrity hacks who came in on the reality TV circuit, they’re legal street fighters who know how the system works in practice. If they do rule against California, it’ll be curious to see how they try to thread the needle. And how the California legislature - which still has plenty of time to submit revised (but still gerrymandered) maps - chooses to respond.
Eh. We’ll see.