2) According to The Hill, a group of Michigan voters and The League of Women Voters argued that Republicans had “engaged in a concerted effort to redraw district lines to benefit Republican candidates…” And apparently, a lower federal court of 3 judges agreed with the leftists.But thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in and chose to side with Republicans instead.
3) According to the Supreme Court, the districts will remain as they are because lower federal courts should not and cannot weigh in on such politically partisan issues.According to Justice Roberts, although redistricting might “seem unjust,” he said that it does NOT mean that the decision should be made by the federal judiciary. Separation of the branches of government must be respected!
4) To quote Roberts directly:
“Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles,’ does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.”According to The Hill, Former Attorney General Eric Holder from Obama’s administration was absolutely FURIOUS about the decision:
“Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, at the time called the decision one which ‘tears at the fabric of our democracy.'”This decision by the Supreme Court will ultimately give security to the Republican Party. The Michigan Democrats have lost this battle completely, and as a result, it’s going to be harder for them to put up a real fight in the upcoming state elections.
This is an important win!
@JM You bet it is!!! 😁 👏 👏 👏
Doesn't matter much, because the voters approved the creation of a redistricting commission that will do this in the future.
Nothing could go wrong with that, right?
It may well help in 2020..and hopefully SCOTUS has set a precedent. Maybe its small potatos..but their sweet ones
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.