The nation's Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that … |
I
couldn’t help but have that reaction myself when I learned Thursday of the way
the court ruled with regards to gerrymandering and the Census.
WITH
REGARD TO the latter, the Supreme Court ruled against the desires of President
Donald Trump – who wanted the Census Bureau’s official population count next
year to include questions about one’s citizenship.
Making
it seem that Trump and his ideologue minions want to officially regard non-U.S.
citizens as non-people who wouldn’t get fully counted.
Who
knows? Maybe Trump fantasized about compiling all that information into some
sort of hit list of people who could then be harassed openly – so as to appease
the jollies of the xenophobic types who are inclined to think that Trump
himself is the equivalent of a “royal highness” of the Americas.
Which
we all ought to realize applies only to states whose political majorities lean
toward Trump-type Republicans.
THE
SUPREME COURT ruled against that notion, with a 5-4 vote in favor of a legal
opinion saying the official argument that such information is needed to enforce
the Voting Rights Act is fraudulent.
For
what it’s worth, that’s the same voter tally the high court reached in another
measure – one that said lawsuits challenging the setting of political
boundaries based on political considerations are not proper.
In
short, all of those Republican-leaning states whose legislatures chose to draw
boundaries meant to benefit their own partisan interests aren’t necessarily
doing anything illegal. For the court ruled that such action is a state issue –
and not one for the federal courts to go about trying to overturn.
… struck down Trump's desires to use the Census, ... |
I
don’t doubt that the people who would have wanted some sort of singling out of
so-called foreigners when it comes to the Census will be pleased the court left
the composition of their Legislatures alone.
WHILE
OTHERS WHO would have seen the population count measure as a blatantly-partisan
political move that deserved to fail now are wondering how in the heck did
those nitwits on the high court blow it so badly with regards to undoing the
practice of gerrymandering – the rigging of electoral boundaries for political
purposes.
Maybe
it’s all that time walking around wearing those black robes that look like
dowdy dresses.
There
is one key to comprehending these two actions – the votes were similar. By and
large, the people who wanted to single out non-citizens in the Census count
also wanted to protect the Republican-leaning Legislatures. The people who
wanted to stop the Census from becoming a political weapon also wanted to have
the court undo Legislature composition they consider to be unfair and unjust.
The
difference was in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts, who as it turned out
voted against the Census count measure and for the measure saying that gerrymandering
is not an issue for the Supreme Court to decide.
REINFORCING
THE CONCEPT that Roberts is the “swing” judge on the court whose opinion breaks
a tie either way. Meaning that much of America probably despises him these days
– although for different reasons that say much about our own partisanship leanings
than anything about the merits of the laws themselves.
Personally,
I don’t doubt the Census question was a hate-inspired proposal. Seeing it die
off is a good thing.
… while indirectly benefitting Madigan |
While
as for gerrymandering, I wonder if the court would have viewed it differently if
the legal case at hand regarded the structure of the Illinois Legislature. Would
the ideologue-minded people have been willing to approve a measure that
targeted the Democratic-leaning Illinois House and state Senate – rather than
the measures that focused on blatantly-Republican leaning states.
Which
may be the way I wind up viewing the latter ruling – it offers some protection
to the political set-up we have in Illinois, which means it sort of benefits
the interests of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Most definitely a
concept that will offend the conservative ideologues as much as their own
partisan rants offend me.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment