Although Democrats also have practiced gerrymanders, they've had fewer opportunities in the current decade because they control fewer state legislatures. The court heard arguments Tuesday in a redistricting case from Wisconsin, where Democrats say Republicans created districts so lopsided that they violated voters' constitutional rights.
" A federal court struck down the plan previous year, agreeing with the plaintiffs that it violated the Constitution because it was the product of partisan gerrymandering - that is, the practice of purposely drawing district lines to favor one party and put another at a disadvantage".
During its questioning, the Court wrestled with the question of how to determine when a redistricting plan is excessively partisan. Once they enter the courtroom or arbitrator's chambers, the argument went, all parties must abide by the rules of the forum, be it the NLRB, the federal courts or the arbitrator.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that criminal proceedings in serious offences such as rape, murder, dacoity and financial fraud can not be repressed even if the two parties settle the disputes as such offences are not private in nature. When asked why, a Republican lawmaker who headed the redistricting process said, "Because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats". Referring to misuse of social media, where people spread false information about court proceedings without cross checking facts, Justice Chandrachud pointed out that often oral observations of judges and the discussions taking place between judges and lawyers are reported as judgements of this court and all types of comments are being made.
President Trump's Supreme Court kicks off the new term with a dramatic docket; Shannon Bream has the details on 'Special Report'.
Kennedy, who has been the swing vote on a wide variety of SCOTUS rulings, staked out a novel approach in this week's High Court argument over how politicians draw legislative lines to favor themselves, focusing the partisan issue on voters' right to associate instead of the traditional "one-man, one-vote" argument that the liberal wing of the court favors.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seeming to speak for the court's liberal wing, said the importance of collective action is "there is strength in numbers". "Isn't that ― what becomes of the precious right to vote?"
Partisan gerrymandering is the practice of drawing legislative and congressional district lines to maximize and perpetuate the power of an incumbent political party.
"We'll have to decide in every case whether the Democrats win or the Republicans win", Roberts said, a scenario that he said would damage the court's credibility.
Otherwise, Smith said, the court runs the risk of states redrawing maps after the 2020 census that would lead to such a partisan advantage that voters could think their votes didn't matter.
The three cases are among several key issues that the court will decide this term, scheduled to run through June.
Imagine an extreme case: a state with five districts where three out of five voters are Republican. It shouldn't be that hard: That pool of potential Texas voters who didn't turn out in 2016 - 7.2 million eligible adults - is bigger than the population of all but 13 states.
The case - Gill v. Whitford - comes from Wisconsin, where the Republicans took advantage of the political backlash in the 2010 election fueled by President Obama's health care bill.
"For many folks, if you don't have the opportunity to act together in a lawsuit against your employer, you're never really going to file a lawsuit at all", he says.
Both Nariman and Salve said that an increasing number of matters were coming up wherein persons holding high positions in government were making controversial statements on matters pending before courts or being investigated by state agencies.
Presumably, Justice Kennedy did not intend to imply that the attorney could share the details of each of the cases with each worker, because that would violate the confidentiality clause in many of these agreements.
The secret to advocacy before the contemporary Supreme Court is no secret: it's all about pandering to Justice Anthony Kennedy.