Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering Case [View all]
Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering CaseBy Jeffrey Toobin
In one cutting remark, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summed up how Justice Neil Gorsuchs patronizing lecture on the Constitution omitted some of the Courts most important precedents. ...................
The argument had gone on for nearly an hour when Gorsuch began a question as follows: Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution. There was a rich subtext to this query. Originalists and textualists such as Gorsuch, and his predecessor on the Court, Antonin Scalia, often criticize their colleagues for inventing rights that are not found in the nations founding document. Gorsuchs statement that the Court should spare a second for the arcane subject of the document was thus a slap at his ideological adversaries; of course, they, too, believe that they are interpreting the Constitution, but, in Gorsuchs view, only he cares about the document itself.
Gorsuch went on to give his colleagues a civics lecture about the text of the Constitution. And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, its pretty clearif you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2. In other words, Gorsuch was saying, why should the Court involve itself in the subject of redistricting at alldidnt the Constitution fail to give the Court the authority to do so?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is bent with age, can sometimes look disengaged or even sleepy during arguments, and she had that droopy look today as well. But, in this moment, she heard Gorsuch very clearly, and she didnt even raise her head before offering a brisk and convincing dismissal. In her still Brooklyn-flecked drawl, she grumbled, Where did one person, one vote come from? ....................
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
45 replies, 25217 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (154)
ReplyReply to this post
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shouldn't a point like his have been expressed BEFORE the Supremes agreed to hear the case?
Gidney N Cloyd
Oct 2017
#4
It the precedent wasn't extant, they likely wouldn't be hearing the case at all.
L. Coyote
Oct 2017
#22
As a counterpoint, Clarence Thomas is so quiet he can be confused for being asleep
mythology
Oct 2017
#9
He has to wait for direction from his wife and the other Tea Party loons first.
TheBlackAdder
Oct 2017
#25
Yes! Poor (great) thing. Hillary expected her to be able to have a nice retirement.
Hortensis
Oct 2017
#18
Hey illegitimate justice Gorsuch..............since your suppose to a learned individual
turbinetree
Oct 2017
#14
Exactly my point. Where is your research? How many Bernie or Busters were there in swing states?
mjvpi
Oct 2017
#37
All I know if when Trump is impeached or arrested or the vote is finally found to be fraudulent
Maraya1969
Oct 2017
#35