“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political
questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no
license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties,
with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal
standards to limit and direct their decisions.” That was Chief Justice
Roberts explaining the 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of
federal courts. (Yes it sucks, but no, it’s not our problem…)
Justice Kagen led the dissent: “Of all the times to
abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one.”
+ In another closely watched (and close) decision, the Court blocked a citizenship question from the Census,
largely because the proponents weren’t compelling (or honest) about their
reasons for adding it. Roberts wrote that the Court “cannot ignore the
disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.” (I wish
we could apply that rule more broadly across the political spectrum.) Once
again, the decision was 5-4. It’s amazing, from the courts to the court of
public opinion, just how many monumental decisions come down to the opinion of
a single person.
