Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[unofan]

Hmm... actually, this post is the essence of the baker's case: the content of the customized message is why he refused to make a custom cake. he did not refuse to sell them a cake (which, as you dourly note, would be illegal).

Sounds like you've just given us the outline of Kennedy's majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling in favor of the baker.

Except he did, because everyone admits he sells wedding cakes, just not to same sex couples

[jerphisch]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Except he did, because everyone admits he sells wedding cakes, just not to same sex couples

Yeah but no one orders custom wedding cakes in Fishy's world, they just walk into Walmart on wedding day and walk out with one off the shelf.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Random baker guy: "Sorry Fredrick and Russell, I don't make cakes with two little guys in black tuxedos on top. I only do one tux guy on top at most because otherwise all that black plastic ruins the aesthetics of my cakes. They just look bad with all the black plastic. I find it ugly and won't make it."

So, would that be content or discrimination?

[jerphisch]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

So refusing to put two grooms on the cake is fine, refusing to sell a cake to two grooms is not?

Random baker guy: "Sorry Fredrick and Russell, I don't make cakes with two little guys in black tuxedos on top. I only do one tux guy on top at most because otherwise all that black plastic ruins the aesthetics of my cakes. They just look bad with all the black plastic. I find it ugly and won't make it."

So, would that be content or discrimination?

It's almost like I asked that question

[unofan]

Random baker guy: "Sorry Fredrick and Russell, I don't make cakes with two little guys in black tuxedos on top. I only do one tux guy on top at most because otherwise all that black plastic ruins the aesthetics of my cakes. They just look bad with all the black plastic. I find it ugly and won't make it."

So, would that be content or discrimination?

Absent other evidence, and presuming he'd still sell the actual cake, it's content.

But depending on other facts not presented, it could easily be found to be a pretextual reason for discrimination.

[joecct]

What is "offensive"? Who defines it?

Apparently, the Government. Or as Kep says, we do. And as I said, that tacitly requires all of us understand and accept that you (or I) may not agree with some outcomes.

You define what is offensive to you. But you must then determine if you or anyone else is harmed by the action. If the answer to the latter is "no one, then it's your problem.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

You define what is offensive to you. But you must then determine if you or anyone else is harmed by the action. If the answer to the latter is "no one, then it's your problem.

If only we really ran our legal system that way.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I recently learned that SCOTUS ruled on gerrymandering in 1962, in Baker v Carr, in which a standard was set that all (federal) legislative districts had to be equal in population (with every state getting at least one district), citing Article I and the 14th Amendment.

Implicit in this result is the necessity of some form of "gerrymander" in order to implement the ruling (i.e., you cannot just superimpose a grid because population is not distributed uniformly).

538 is running an occasional series on gerrymandering and comes to a similar conclusion: in order to have legislative districts be equal in population, you have to have some funny-looking shapes.

There were some details that weren't clear in what I read:
- districts of equal "population"? or districts of equal population of US citizens?

Also, if you think that district lines "must" be drawn to ensure that minorities have a majority in some of them, then you are explicitly endorsing gerrymander by race, so now there is another layer of funny-looking shapes to consider.

I wonder if the ruling on "partisan" gerrymandering will be similar to the ruling on pornography: devilishly difficult to define precisely, yet "you know it when you see it."

Though there is potentially an inherent contradiction in saying "partisan" gerrymandering is wrong but minority/majority is not.....aren't minorities disproportionately aligned with one party??

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I recently learned that SCOTUS ruled on gerrymandering in 1962, in Baker v Carr, in which a standard was set that all (federal) legislative districts had to be equal in population (with every state getting at least one district), citing Article I and the 14th Amendment.

Implicit in this result is the necessity of some form of "gerrymander" in order to implement the ruling (i.e., you cannot just superimpose a grid because population is not distributed uniformly).

538 is running an occasional series on gerrymandering and comes to a similar conclusion: in order to have legislative districts be equal in population, you have to have some funny-looking shapes.

There were some details that weren't clear in what I read:
- districts of equal "population"? or districts of equal population of US citizens?

Also, if you think that district lines "must" be drawn to ensure that minorities have a majority in some of them, then you are explicitly endorsing gerrymander by race, so now there is another layer of funny-looking shapes to consider.

I wonder if the ruling on "partisan" gerrymandering will be similar to the ruling on pornography: devilishly difficult to define precisely, yet "you know it when you see it."

Though there is potentially an inherent contradiction in saying "partisan" gerrymandering is wrong but minority/majority is not.....aren't minorities disproportionately aligned with one party??

I know I'll regret this but I'll proceed as if you're honestly intellectually interested in this question and not just scoring your usual lunkheaded, elementary school points.

Baker v Carr is taught in every Con Law I know of as a textbook case of how difficult balancing different constitutional claims can be. It arose from one of the fun little tricks in the old south: if blacks were 40% of the population you drew the districts so that they were 40% in every district, and thus outvoted everywhere. Thus they wound up with zero representation despite being almost half the population. You'll like this part: the Dems were the villain of the piece, because this was back when the worst racists were Dixiecrats before the Great Racist Migration to the Republicans in the 80s.

Plenty of people, both liberal and conservative, have had heartburn over that ruling, particularly since it gives rise to the kind of spurious arguments you are making, and because it can be and has been exploited for political advantage by both sides over the last half century. Plenty of us think that it was necessary at the time but having racial set-asides isn't the best way to handle things going forward. Not only that, but having black representation of tailored all-black districts may actually hurt blacks in pursuit of policy outcomes, since the white pols in the other districts can ignore them. If every pol had a substantial percentage of black constituents we wouldn't be hearing the Blue Lives Matter dogwhistle.

[joecct]

I know I'll regret this but I'll proceed as if you're honestly intellectually interested in this question and not just scoring your usual lunkheaded, elementary school points.

Baker v Carr is taught in every Con Law I know of as a textbook case of how difficult balancing different constitutional claims can be. It arose from one of the fun little tricks in the old south: if blacks were 40% of the population you drew the districts so that they were 40% in every district, and thus outvoted everywhere. Thus they wound up with zero representation despite being almost half the population. You'll like this part: the Dems were the villain of the piece, because this was back when the worst racists were Dixiecrats before the Great Racist Migration to the Republicans in the 80s.

Plenty of people, both liberal and conservative, have had heartburn over that ruling, particularly since it gives rise to the kind of spurious arguments you are making, and because it can be and has been exploited for political advantage by both sides over the last half century. Plenty of us think that it was necessary at the time but having racial set-asides isn't the best way to handle things going forward. Not only that, but having black representation of tailored all-black districts may actually hurt blacks in pursuit of policy outcomes, since the white pols in the other districts can ignore them. If every pol had a substantial percentage of black constituents we wouldn't be hearing the Blue Lives Matter dogwhistle.

Other states had the same issue. IIRC, Los Angeles had 1 Congressional District, Maryland had an at-large congressman. The one man, one vote principle is a good one.

But the question is how much Federal interference in what is a state prerogative is too much.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Maryland had an at-large congressman.

This is fascinating. I did not know that. Why didn't they just redraw for 8 seats?

[joecct]

This is fascinating. I did not know that. Why didn't they just redraw for 8 seats?

You lived here. My guess is that somebody with a lot of clout didn't want his district redrawn.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

You lived here. My guess is that somebody with a lot of clout didn't want his district redrawn.

I thought of that but then he'd just have had the other districts carved up. I think there may be an interesting tale here.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The one man, one vote principle is a good one.

But the question is how much Federal interference in what is a state prerogative is too much.

Particularly since SCOTUS rulings become precedent and often become static; while Congressional district lines must be re-drawn every ten years as a result of the census data. Like Kennedy said, "we don't want every disagreement over district lines to wind up on our desk."

I wonder what the legal arguments are about drawing district lines based on total population versus drawing district lines based on US citizen population (i.e., total population vs population that is eligible to vote/will be eligible to vote once old enough). You cannot "disenfranchise" someone who doesn't have the right to vote to begin with.

I know in some states there is tremendous pressure on census takers (temporary workers paid minimum wage) to find every person they possibly can*, and not ask about citizenship. Not only Congressional representation, but also funding for a number of various federal programs, depend upon population totals as recorded in the census.

Are states like California and Texas over-represented compared to, say, Minnesota or New Hampshire? (perhaps based on an unwarranted assumption of total population vs US citizen population in those states).

and it is not only "illegal" immigrants in this question, it also would be legal immigrants.





* I was a census-taker once. While much of the census is done by mail, there are several areas in which that alone is insufficient.
- some people don't respond to the mailing, and so we were supposed to knock on their door. We each had lists of home addresses. Phone calls didn't count; had to be in person.
- There is a specified day in which every census taker is supposed to tally people in motor homes; we were going through Walmart parking lot / shopping center parking lots knocking on doors on that day.
- There is also a specified day in which we tallied homeless people; that was a bit unnerving and we were advised always to travel in pairs.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

You cannot "disenfranchise" someone who doesn't have the right to vote to begin with.

Yes, you can. The franchise includes the right of democratic representation.

The GOP has tried to get around one man one vote by putting all the blacks in jail on trumped up drug charges and removing their voting rights but they're angry because their black friends still vote and carry the full weight of their population. So now they're literally trying to make those prisoners disappear. It's their 0/5ths compromise.

You guys should just drop all pretenses and shoot them. Then you can take them out of the population count and give your dirt farming whites extra districts!