Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; WOW!? The lines, DANG!

[Pogo]

Not politics- elections.

The State Supreme Court was enforcing the State Constitution.

Why are you against State's rights?

What does this have to do with state's rights? I have a lot of friends in PA who have been discussing this issue on social media and what they are saying is that the court illegally seized power by doing this, that redistricting lies solely with the legislature and the state SCOTUS has no right to intervene. I'm obviously no expert on Pennsylvania law, but if that is true then it is very concerning that the judicial branch is attempting a major power grab. It also needs to be pointed out that this decision was handed down by a 5-4 vote, in which the five justices in the majority are Democrats, so it has the appearance of being very partisan decision.

That said, I do like the new map. Gerrymandering needs to stop altogether, but we cannot allow the courts to engage in judicial fiat.

Where in the Pennsylvania Constitution does it say that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution?

I will put this another way- how has the Pennyslvania Supreme Court violated the Penn Constitution in this action?

Regarding the 'appearance of being a very partisan decision'.....well the Supreme Court didn't let that stop them in the Gore decision.

If the actions of the Penn Supreme Court violate the Penn Constitution- well they can be removed.

As I said, I'm not an expert on the PA Constitution. I'm just telling you what I've been reading from a lot of other people and what several state legislators have claimed, including the Senate President. Also, there is a difference between interpreting the Constitution and changing it to the way you want it to be.

There's also a difference between saying "Judge X is a member of party Y" and saying "Judge X is partisan".
You made a leap there that is not in evidence. These are judges, not politicians.

If you seriously believe that judges are unbiased I have a bridge I would like to sell you

What the hell do you think the function of a judge IS?

Once again, you're making assumptive leaps on the basis of nothing but having looked up a judge's political party and ass-suming that must mean "bias". News flash --- political parties are like cars. You pick one go take you where you want to go. They'll all get you there regardless which one you take.

I've got a sheriff in town who ran for re-election (and won) as a Republican, after he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same office. Nothing changed except which vehicle he thought would get him there.

 

[Syriusly]

Not politics- elections.

The State Supreme Court was enforcing the State Constitution.

Why are you against State's rights?

What does this have to do with state's rights? I have a lot of friends in PA who have been discussing this issue on social media and what they are saying is that the court illegally seized power by doing this, that redistricting lies solely with the legislature and the state SCOTUS has no right to intervene. I'm obviously no expert on Pennsylvania law, but if that is true then it is very concerning that the judicial branch is attempting a major power grab. It also needs to be pointed out that this decision was handed down by a 5-4 vote, in which the five justices in the majority are Democrats, so it has the appearance of being very partisan decision.

That said, I do like the new map. Gerrymandering needs to stop altogether, but we cannot allow the courts to engage in judicial fiat.

Where in the Pennsylvania Constitution does it say that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution?

I will put this another way- how has the Pennyslvania Supreme Court violated the Penn Constitution in this action?

Regarding the 'appearance of being a very partisan decision'.....well the Supreme Court didn't let that stop them in the Gore decision.

If the actions of the Penn Supreme Court violate the Penn Constitution- well they can be removed.

As I said, I'm not an expert on the PA Constitution. I'm just telling you what I've been reading from a lot of other people and what several state legislators have claimed, including the Senate President. Also, there is a difference between interpreting the Constitution and changing it to the way you want it to be.

There's also a difference between saying "Judge X is a member of party Y" and saying "Judge X is partisan".
You made a leap there that is not in evidence. These are judges, not politicians.

Not politics- elections.

The State Supreme Court was enforcing the State Constitution.

Why are you against State's rights?

What does this have to do with state's rights? I have a lot of friends in PA who have been discussing this issue on social media and what they are saying is that the court illegally seized power by doing this, that redistricting lies solely with the legislature and the state SCOTUS has no right to intervene. I'm obviously no expert on Pennsylvania law, but if that is true then it is very concerning that the judicial branch is attempting a major power grab. It also needs to be pointed out that this decision was handed down by a 5-4 vote, in which the five justices in the majority are Democrats, so it has the appearance of being very partisan decision.

That said, I do like the new map. Gerrymandering needs to stop altogether, but we cannot allow the courts to engage in judicial fiat.

Where in the Pennsylvania Constitution does it say that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution?

I will put this another way- how has the Pennyslvania Supreme Court violated the Penn Constitution in this action?

Regarding the 'appearance of being a very partisan decision'.....well the Supreme Court didn't let that stop them in the Gore decision.

If the actions of the Penn Supreme Court violate the Penn Constitution- well they can be removed.

As I said, I'm not an expert on the PA Constitution. I'm just telling you what I've been reading from a lot of other people and what several state legislators have claimed, including the Senate President. Also, there is a difference between interpreting the Constitution and changing it to the way you want it to be.

There's also a difference between saying "Judge X is a member of party Y" and saying "Judge X is partisan".
You made a leap there that is not in evidence. These are judges, not politicians.

If you seriously believe that judges are unbiased I have a bridge I would like to sell you

There is a difference between being 'biased' and being 'partisan'- most especially on how they act.

I don't recall many Republicans having an issue with the bias of the Supreme Court in 2000.

 

[mdk]

This map is certainly more reasonable than the previous. Whether it stands as the result of a federal lawsuit remains to be seen.

 

[busybee01]

FYI: Before this map...

Pennsylvania Republican calls for impeachment of state Supreme Court justices who ordered congressional map redrawn GOP state lawmaker seeks to impeach judges after Pa. gerrymandering ruling

Typical Republican. Maybe he should be impeached. This map seems far less partisan than what Republicans drew.

 

[busybee01]

Not politics- elections.

The State Supreme Court was enforcing the State Constitution.

Why are you against State's rights?

What does this have to do with state's rights? I have a lot of friends in PA who have been discussing this issue on social media and what they are saying is that the court illegally seized power by doing this, that redistricting lies solely with the legislature and the state SCOTUS has no right to intervene. I'm obviously no expert on Pennsylvania law, but if that is true then it is very concerning that the judicial branch is attempting a major power grab. It also needs to be pointed out that this decision was handed down by a 5-4 vote, in which the five justices in the majority are Democrats, so it has the appearance of being very partisan decision.

That said, I do like the new map. Gerrymandering needs to stop altogether, but we cannot allow the courts to engage in judicial fiat.

It is states rights because it involves the State Constitution. The SCOTUS has already said that other entities other than state legislatures can draw lines. They have every right to intervene.

 

[Coyote]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

The new districts look clean and compact - hard to argue against it after looking at the mess in the before map.

 

[busybee01]

Not politics- elections.

The State Supreme Court was enforcing the State Constitution.

Why are you against State's rights?

What does this have to do with state's rights? I have a lot of friends in PA who have been discussing this issue on social media and what they are saying is that the court illegally seized power by doing this, that redistricting lies solely with the legislature and the state SCOTUS has no right to intervene. I'm obviously no expert on Pennsylvania law, but if that is true then it is very concerning that the judicial branch is attempting a major power grab. It also needs to be pointed out that this decision was handed down by a 5-4 vote, in which the five justices in the majority are Democrats, so it has the appearance of being very partisan decision.

That said, I do like the new map. Gerrymandering needs to stop altogether, but we cannot allow the courts to engage in judicial fiat.

Where in the Pennsylvania Constitution does it say that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution?

I will put this another way- how has the Pennyslvania Supreme Court violated the Penn Constitution in this action?

Regarding the 'appearance of being a very partisan decision'.....well the Supreme Court didn't let that stop them in the Gore decision.

If the actions of the Penn Supreme Court violate the Penn Constitution- well they can be removed.

As I said, I'm not an expert on the PA Constitution. I'm just telling you what I've been reading from a lot of other people and what several state legislators have claimed, including the Senate President. Also, there is a difference between interpreting the Constitution and changing it to the way you want it to be.

All Republicans I am sure.

 

[Coyote]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

It's a hellava lot better than the gerrymandered districts in Maryland.

You know.

The one where no Republican can ever stand a chance at winning.

The one where my neighbors across the street are in a different district than I am.

The one where the Democrat Mayor admitted was gerrymandered to ensure only Democrats would be elected.

The one where the courts are in the process of hearing a case.

It should be tackled in the same way as the Pennsylvania map then. Both parties blatently gerrymander. Time to say enough.

 

[Rustic]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

Democrats gerrymandering again

 

[busybee01]

This map is certainly more reasonable than the previous. Whether it stands as the result of a federal lawsuit remains to be seen.

Federal lawsuits are going nowhere. Alito's refusal to act will send the message to other judges.

 

[Coyote]

According to this The Top 10 Most Gerrymandered States In America – Rantt Media - the top ten most gerrymandered states are:

North Carolina
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Utah
Texas
Arkansas
Ohio

 

[Syriusly]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

It's a hellava lot better than the gerrymandered districts in Maryland.

You know.

The one where no Republican can ever stand a chance at winning.

The one where my neighbors across the street are in a different district than I am.

The one where the Democrat Mayor admitted was gerrymandered to ensure only Democrats would be elected.

The one where the courts are in the process of hearing a case.

It should be tackled in the same way as the Pennsylvania map then. Both parties blatently gerrymander. Time to say enough.

Exactly- gerrymandering by either party is a blatant effort to deny/dilute the value of an individuals vote- if they are of the opposite political party.

I don't care which party does it- it should be stopped.

 

[Syriusly]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

Democrats gerrymandering again

Republicans and Democrats are always trying to gerrymander.

In the case of Pennsylvania though- it was the Republicans who did so to deny the value of their votes to Democrats.

In other states it often has been Democrats.

Personally I think it is always wrong.

 

[Dekster]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

I don't see how this is remotely constitutional.

How exactly- and based upon which Constitution?

The separation of powers one. This is the job of the legislature, not the courts, and there is no equal protection argument here since democrats are not a protected class.

 

[Syriusly]

Pennsylvania court issues new congressional district map for 2018 elections; map almost certain to face GOP challenge

NOW! 2018

Pa. Supreme Court unveils new congressional map

Before map.

DANG!....

I don't see how this is remotely constitutional.

How exactly- and based upon which Constitution?

The separation of powers one. This is the job of the legislature, not the courts, and there is no equal protection argument here since democrats are not a protected class.

The Penn Supreme Court disagrees with you- and Justice Alito- hardly any 'liberal' already rejected the plea to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So you approve of gerrymandering for the specific purpose of benefiting either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or only when it benefits the Republicans?

 

[xyz]

According to this The Top 10 Most Gerrymandered States In America – Rantt Media - the top ten most gerrymandered states are:

North Carolina
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Utah
Texas
Arkansas
Ohio

New Mexico looks alright, but wow at that fat alien district in Arizona (from the USA map, second illustration).

 

[ptbw forever]

According to this The Top 10 Most Gerrymandered States In America – Rantt Media - the top ten most gerrymandered states are:

North Carolina
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Utah
Texas
Arkansas
Ohio

Kentucky was done by Democrats btw.

 

[Coyote]

According to this The Top 10 Most Gerrymandered States In America – Rantt Media - the top ten most gerrymandered states are:

North Carolina
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Utah
Texas
Arkansas
Ohio

Kentucky was done by Democrats btw.

So?