North Carolina's highest court on Friday ruled that state law does not bar lawmakers from drawing congressional and state legislative maps for partisan benefit, boosting Republicans' odds next year of maintaining their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
...
Friday's ruling vacated the court's previous decision, issued barely more than a year ago when Democratic judges controlled the court, that had found partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution.
When the rulings depend on which party controls the court, then the rulings are nothing more than political calculations dressed up in highfalutin' legalese.
"Calling balls and strikes"? Yeah, and the umps have been bribed.
4 comments:
In Michigan we had a vote to eliminate gerrymandering. We won and the Republicans screamed, cried and did everything to block the peoples decision. The last election (2022) seen a Democratic majority in the Mich. Congress for the first time in forty years. Now things are getting done for the people. The Republicans are now reduced to taking everything to court trying to block progress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFZqR4r6fcM
"When the rulings depend on which party controls the court, then the rulings are nothing more than political calculations dressed up in highfalutin' legalese."
You are correct. In a perfect world, at that level, there should/would not be any politics, only law.
Sadly, that has not ever been the case in my lifetime. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals have ever failed to let their politics, their ideology, drive their decisions. Both sides have failed to be impartial and judicial in their actions and judgements.
Shamefully, this is, however, expected and (apparently) supported, on both sides, which is why we have such fights over who is appointed to the Supreme Court every time. Both sides want a non-impartial jurist who will rule for their side.
It is, really, an embarrassment to both sides that we cannot have a truly impartial court.
At one point, I did contract work for a few law firms. One of the firms did mostly federal cases. When it came to appellate cases, it was common knowledge that the outcome depended very heavily on which judges were on the panel. If the client was a business and at least two of the judges were conservatives, a brief could be submitted in crayon and win. The liberal judges were not as reliable, they could be swayed by a good argument about the facts and the law.
It was pretty blatant. I looked into a couple of other appellate circuits and found a similar pattern. I found one circuit that never found for a plaintiff in a certain area of civil rights law.
I concluded that a lot of the appellate circuits were populated by ideological hacks.
Things need to change.
Post a Comment