Supreme Court Rules on Census, Gerrymandering, and Consent Cases

First, the big one for which we were all waiting with baited breath: Whether the Trump Regime would be allowed to add a nativist question to the 2020 census, which could "allow for electorate boundaries throughout America to be redrawn, almost certainly favouring the Republican party" and "result in billions of dollars in federal funds being withheld from some of the most vulnerable communities in America." The court ruled that they cannot add the citizenship question — but only because their reason for doing it was garbage. Problem is, I'm not certain at all that wasn't just direction on how to come back with an argument that the Supreme Court would find acceptable. As SCOTUSblog notes : "For now, the question is out. It is unclear if there is enough time left to add it back in." So, unfortunately, we may not have seen the end of this fuckery yet. * * * Next up: The gerrymandered maps case. The court ruled that "partisan-gerrymandering challenges to electoral maps are political questions that are not reviewable in federal court, dismissing challenges by Democratic voters to North Carolina congressional map drawn by Republican officials and by Republican voters to 1 district drawn by Democrats in Maryland." Since when are "political questions" not reviewable in federal court? Their definition of "politics" is certainly if it doesn't include electoral maps but does include healthcare access, reproductive rights, and same-sex marriage. Cough. Also, I'm old enough to remember when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act six years ago, so. Cripes. * * * And finally: The "assumed consent" case. The court ruled that "state law assuming driver's consent to blood test for drugs/alcohol, even when driver is unconscious, provides exception to 4th Amendment's warrant requirement, allowing law enforcement to draw blood from unconscious drivers without warrant." YIKES. I understand that it's a real fucker to not be able to prove inebriation in the case of driving under the influence when the driver is out for the count, but "the requirement to get consent is inconvenient" isn't a good precedent for ruling that consent is therefore unnecessary. That is, quite obviously, a gateway to eroding legal protections of consent in many other areas. Fuck.

Source: Shakesville.com

Powered by NewsAPI.org

Keywords:

Supreme Court of the United States • Gerrymandering • First Amendment to the United States Constitution • Donald Trump • Nativism (politics) • 2020 United States Census • Republican Party (United States) • Citizenship • Reason • Supreme Court of the United States • SCOTUSblog • Gerrymandering • Political party • Gerrymandering • Election • Political question • Federal judiciary of the United States • Democratic Party (United States) • Voting • North Carolina • United States Congress • Republican Party (United States) • Republican Party (United States) • Washington, D.C. • Democratic Party (United States) • Maryland • Federal judiciary of the United States • Politics of the United States • Health care • Reproductive rights • Same-sex marriage • Supreme Court of the United States • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Legal case • Consent • Blood test • Drug • Alcohol • Driving • Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution • Warrant (law) • Law enforcement • Driving • Alcohol intoxication • Case law • Driving under the influence • Out for the Count • Consent • Precedent • Consent • Law • Consent •