PUNT: Supreme Court doesn't reach the merits in 2 partisan gerrymandering cases

[DGUtley]

The Supreme Court punts again: Supreme Court doesn't reach the merits in 2 partisan gerrymandering cases. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday returned two cases to the lower courts that had contended it is unconstitutional to redraw voting district lines to give an advantage to a political party. In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the plaintiffs had failed to prove standing, and remanded to give the plaintiffs a chance to show an injury supporting their standing claim, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.

Attachment 23706

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...gn=daily_email

[donttread]

What do you expect all of them except the Textualist are simply extensions of the "two major gangs" .?

[DGUtley]

I was taught in Law school that they are supposed to avoid the constitutional issue if they can.

[Tahuyaman]

I was taught in Law school that they are supposed to avoid the constitutional issue if they can.

I'm not a lawyer, but how can the Supreme Court avoid the constitutional aspect of anything they rule on?

[DGUtley]

I'm not a lawyer, but how can the Supreme Court avoid the constitutional aspect of anything they rule on?

I was taught that if they can decide it other grounds, they are to do so -- i.e. standing.
@Tahuyaman -- I've been out of law school a long time, but I found this: https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/06...titutionality/

and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

[Tahuyaman]

So, they should be looking to determine if a statute is unconstitutional vs constitutional......

[DGUtley]

So, they should be looking to determine if a statute is unconstitutional vs constitutional......

Not if they can avoid it.

[MisterVeritis]

So, they should be looking to determine if a statute is unconstitutional vs constitutional......

The courts were established to try cases and controversies. They were not established to tell the legislatures their business. It is best when the courts do not meddle.

[Chris]

Agree, they should avoid deciding constitutional issues if possible, leave it to the legislature.


But this court sure does seem to punt a lot. I hear Da Bears are looking for a punter!

[Captdon]

I don't see how a party can be a deciding factor to start with. They aren't a protected class and not everyone is a party member.

This Court wants to avoid this like it's poison. They look bad no matter how they rule.