Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • How LEDs Are Making Light Pollution Worse
    • America’s Food Supply Has Become Too Big To Fail – Cyclospora
    • ‘Another in a Long String of Attacks’ (VIDEO) * The Gateway Pundit * by Mike LaChance
    • Commentary: Despite chaos and controversy, there’s much to celebrate about this World Cup
    • China and Philippines trade accusations after sailor injured at sea | Border Disputes News
    • Shedeur Sanders discusses relationship with Deshaun Watson amid competition
    • Troy Jackson emerges as potential frontrunner to replace Graham Platner in Maine’s Senate race
    • IEEE Program Helps Girls In India See a Future In STEM
    Prime US News
    • Home
    • World News
    • Latest News
    • US News
    • Sports
    • Politics
    • Opinions
    • More
      • Tech News
      • Trending News
      • World Economy
    Prime US News
    Home»Opinions»Supreme Court’s opinion on Texas’ new maps is ‘blatant sophistry’
    Opinions

    Supreme Court’s opinion on Texas’ new maps is ‘blatant sophistry’

    Team_Prime US NewsBy Team_Prime US NewsDecember 9, 2025No Comments3 Mins Read
    Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Reddit Telegram Email
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


    Dec. 9, 2025 8 AM PT

    To the editor: Contributing author Erwin Chemerinsky’s latest op-ed ought to be required studying for all who assist our constitutional democracy (“The Supreme Court’s 3 terrible reasons for allowing Texas’ racially rigged map,” Dec. 5).

    There are such a lot of issues flawed with the Supreme Court docket’s blocking of the decrease courtroom’s reasoned opinion that dominated the Texas redistricting map unconstitutional. As Chemerinsky factors out, the three causes given by the Supreme Court docket in its unsigned opinion are blatant sophistry and lead to successfully making it unimaginable for anybody to problem a legislature’s motion in redistricting anytime upfront of a midterm congressional election.

    What’s extra, this choice comes from the courtroom’s “shadow docket,” that means it’s rendered with out briefing or oral argument — however nonetheless offers a inexperienced gentle to the challenged redistricting map for this upcoming election.

    The rationale {that a} map drawn for purely partisan political functions is likely to be constitutionally permissible is gorgeous. In 2019, in Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts (in upholding a redistricting map) wrote: “Extreme partisanship in districting results in outcomes that fairly appear unjust. However the truth that such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic rules’ doesn’t imply that the answer lies with the federal judiciary.” However that is the place we’re.

    James Stiven, Cardiff
    This author is a retired U.S. Justice of the Peace decide.

    ..

    To the editor: Chemerinsky is outraged that Texas is allowed to redraw its congressional maps, that are designed to elect 5 extra Republicans to the Home of Representatives. Would it not be correct to ban Texas from doing this after California has already discovered authorized avenues to do one thing related? I’m unsure how all states might be compelled to attract districts which might be affordable and truthful, however Chemerinsky appears to lament the gerrymandering follow in Texas with out mentioning complaints when it occurs in California.

    David Waldowski, Laguna Woods

    ..

    To the editor: Though Chemerinsky precisely describes the Supreme Court docket’s said causes for the choice, the precise rationale was in all probability way more cynical.

    First, Texas racially rigged its election district maps to favor Trump within the midterms. Second, California rigged its personal maps in response, however did it higher by placing it to statewide vote. Lastly, the Texas stunt bought challenged in courtroom on strong constitutional grounds and regarded prefer it would possibly lose, in order that the entire thing would possibly backfire in opposition to our man President Trump. And, nicely, we will’t have that, can we?

    Ronald Ellsworth, La Mesa



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleTrump to speak in Pennsylvania to start selling his economic agenda ahead of midterm elections
    Next Article The ‘QBs sacked seven times in a win’ quiz
    Team_Prime US News
    • Website

    Related Posts

    Opinions

    As L.A. River faces gentrification, the solution is affordable housing

    July 20, 2026
    Opinions

    Contributor: Keep antivax politics out of foster parent licensing

    July 20, 2026
    Opinions

    Contributor: Air conditioning alone won’t save us from killer heat

    July 19, 2026
    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Most Popular

    MAJOR UPDATE: President Trump Says He Is Working on a Plan for Ukraine to Pay Back the $350 Billion the US Sent to Ukraine | The Gateway Pundit

    February 17, 2025

    LAX’s ‘roadway improvement’ plan is actually an ‘impending disaster’

    November 19, 2025

    Mark Chesnutt hospitalized, cancels upcoming concerts after falling ill

    October 18, 2025
    Our Picks

    How LEDs Are Making Light Pollution Worse

    July 21, 2026

    America’s Food Supply Has Become Too Big To Fail – Cyclospora

    July 21, 2026

    ‘Another in a Long String of Attacks’ (VIDEO) * The Gateway Pundit * by Mike LaChance

    July 21, 2026
    Categories
    • Latest News
    • Opinions
    • Politics
    • Sports
    • Tech News
    • Trending News
    • US News
    • World Economy
    • World News
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms and Conditions
    • About us
    • Contact us
    Copyright © 2024 Primeusnews.com All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.