General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAll Hail Ginsburg the Great: Justice Ginsburg Deals a Blow to Partisan Gerrymandering
Then manifestly, she's RIGHT.
In a victory for opponents of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the use of an independent commission to draw Arizona's congressional districts. Writing for a narrow majority in the 5-4 ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg touted the importance of direct democracy and making sure the power of the people is not hijacked by its elected representatives.
"The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering," Ginsburg wrote. "In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'" Ginsburg's opinion was joined by the three other liberal-leaning justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
In his dissent, Roberts accused the majority of performing a "magic trick" with the wording of the Constitution. His dissent begins with an account of Arizona's passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the direct election of US senators. "What chumps!" the chief wrote. "Didnt they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term 'the Legislature' to mean 'the people'? The Court today performs just such a magic trick with the Elections Clause."
...
"By insulating redistricting decisions from direct partisan influence, commissions like Arizonas offer a crucial first step toward breaking the cycle of partisanship and dysfunction perpetuated by legislative gerrymandering. The States efforts to use such commissions to tackle one of Americas most intractable political problems have great potential and are fully consistent with the States traditional role as laboratories of democracy." The Supreme Court agreed.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/supreme-court-redistricting-case-arizona
_____________________
And RBG strikes another blow for democracy. I hope they erect a statue in her honor at her alma mater.
JUDICIAL GIANT!
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Now, that was a magic trick if I ever saw one!
whathehell
(29,096 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)whathehell
(29,096 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"Just say the magic words, Julie Andrews!"
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)has been developing for a long time - pls. see the list of decisions going back to the 1800's in this link (scroll down).
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Nothing should be allowed to exist in theoretical immortality, particularly when it is unaccountable to the people.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)that are also part of the "corporate personhood" infestation too!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)former9thward
(32,097 posts)An 1819 decision, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, held that corporations have the right to enter into contract agreements with the same protections as individual people. Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania
125 U.S. 181 (1888), Justice Field issued an opinion which stated "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included."
So the concept has been around a long time and not really challenged until recently.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)The Supremes have many, many foolish decisions to haunt them, Dred Scott comes to mind.
It's funny, our founding fathers fought against corporations (corporations were established by the king with grants of money, land, seals and controlling bodies.). The original tea party was about unfair taxes involving a corporation, the East India Tea company. The corporation didn't have to pay the tax, the people of the colonies did have to pay the tax so the East India Tea company could undercut their tea prices every time. Dartmouth was one of those corporations established by the king. And the foolish Supremes have allowed the British king's plan to dominate the average person through corporations to succeed.
The royals are still controlling us even here in the US. See how effectively capitalism has ensured the survival of the feudal lords. It's about time we evolved beyond it and got rid of our kings, corporate or royal, for good.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)I adore her.
Spazito
(50,514 posts)the majority performed a magic trick with the wording of the Constitution in their Citizens United decision where they interpreted the First Amendment as meaning 'Corporations are people too'.
This decision adheres to the Constitution.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"Living National Treasures." Justice Ginsburg surely is that.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but right now, I will be happy if she simply picks someone to replace Scalia and be a REAL judge, as well as seal any leaks left should Ruth lose her cancer battle.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)Thanks for the thread, Surya Gayatri.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)Novara
(5,857 posts)marble falls
(57,353 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Orrex
(63,233 posts)We should immediately reallocate our entire military budget toward keeping this amazing woman alive and healthy for as many decades as she cares to stick around.
A truly remarkable and heroic figure.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Seriously. I would.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)that they need to put on the new $10 bill. I don't care that she is, and hopefully will be, still alive when they do it.
bucolic_frolic
(43,364 posts)but commissions are not legislatures and commissions are not people.
Ya Gotta Wonder.
I had doubts about RBG not retiring, but she really brought home the bacon
this year.
One great mind can change the world.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Back in 2008, as I remember, the GOP actually SUPPORTED (with $$$) the redistricting ballot prop, hoping it would strengthen
the GOP in a Democratic-dominated state.
It didn't.
Now Public Redistricting is seen as an enemy of GOP/Conservative power, as redistricting by politicians has given the GOP the mis-leading appearance (and apparent "performance" of strength in places where they are actually weaker.
Texas and other rightwing-corporatist hotbeds will never permit this ----It could be permanently fatal
to the GOP majority there, and elsewhere.