THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED TO NOT CRACKDOWN ON PARTISAN
GERRYMANDERING IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.
THEY ARE OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE
TO COME BACK TO THEM WITH SOMETHING KNOWN AS STANDING.
FIRST LET ME GIVE YOU MORE CONTEXT.
>>LET ME GIVE YOU CONTEXT.
FIRST OF ALL IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT GERRYMANDERING THAT
IS WHERE POLITICIANS PICK THEIR VOTERS INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY.
THEY DRIVE RIDICULOUS MAPS AND SAY THIS WILL BE MY DISTRICT
BECAUSE THAT DISTRICT FAVORS ME.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SUING OVER THAT.
THERE IS A REASON WHY THE SUPREME COURT DOESN'T WANT
TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY.
THEY USE THIS EXCUSE CALLED STANDING.
IT IS A REAL LEGAL CONCEPT IT MAKES SENSE IF YOU AND I
ARE IN DISPUTE AND BOB COMES IN AND WANTS TO SUE ONE OF US.
THE COURTS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WITH IT, GET OUT OF HERE.
IN THIS CASE DO THEY HAVE STANDING TO SUE ON BEHALF
OF ALL VOTERS IN WISCONSIN.
THEY SAY NO, YOU JUST HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN DISTRICT.
I THINK THE MIX NO SENSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A UNANIMOUS
DECISION.
WHY?
IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT AND A DISTRICT THAT HAS 80% DEMOCRATS
THE COURTS WILL SAY YOU CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT YOUR OWN DISTRICT.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE CONTEXT.
BECAUSE THIS DISTRICT IS 80% DEMOCRAT, THREE DISTRICTS AROUND
IT OR 55% REPUBLICAN AND THAT IS HOW THEY MANIPULATE THE STATE BY
DRAWING THE MAP IN A WAY THAT YOU WILL GET ONE DEMOCRATIC
SEAT, AND THREE LIKELY REPUBLICAN SEATS.
THAT IS WHY SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE STANDING MAKES NO
SENSE IN MY OPINION.
WHY DO ALL THE JUSTICES AGREED TO IT?
THEY HAVE THEIR PLAN
WHICH IS I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE 2018 ELECTIONS.
SOME WILL SAY THIS IS TOO CONSPIRATORIAL.
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE NOT PARTISAN.
HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THEIR DECISIONS?
IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN
OVER THE HOUSE AND HAVE A LANDSLIDE ELECTION IN 2018 AND
2019 THEY WILL COME BACK AND SAY GERRYMANDERING, IT IS A BAD
IDEA.
THEY DO THE REDISTRICTING EVERY 10 YEARS AFTER THE CENSUS.
IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN BIG IN 2018 THEY MIGHT WIN HUGE IN 2020
AND THEN THEY WOULD GET TO DRAW THE MAPS.
SO REPUBLICANS ON THE COURT SAY GERRYMANDERING GETS A BAD IDEA.
IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN 2018 THEN THEY GET TO DO A DO OVER AND SAY
YOUR DISTRICT IS FINE.
SO WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS GO ALONG WITH IT?
BECAUSE AT LEAST THIS CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT.
AGAIN THIS IS MY SPECULATION, THE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT
DOESN'T SAY THE GERRYMANDERING IS OKAY.
SO THEY SAY FINE, LET'S PUNT, AND THEN FOUR OF THEM WRITE AN
OPINION AND SAY WHEN THEY COME BACK WE WILL MAKE A DECISION.
>> I DO WANT TO MENTION THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY CLARENCE THOMAS
AND NEIL GORSUCH, THEY DISSENTED FROM THIS PART OF THE
RULING BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT COMPLETELY.
THEY DON'T EVEN WANT THIS CASE TO COME BACK EVEN WITH STANDING.
THEY JUST WANT TO THROW IT OUT.
>>CLARENCE THOMAS IS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.
HE ALMOST NEVER ASKED THE QUESTION IS BARELY AWAKE DURING
THE PROCEEDINGS ñ AT THE END HE IS LIKE WHAT DO REPUBLICANS
WANT?
YEAH GERRYMANDERING IS AWESOME, TOTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL.
NOW NEIL GORSUCH AS SO CONSERVATIVE HE IS GONE TO THE
RIGHT OF SAMUEL ALITO WHO USED TO BE THE OTHER MASSIVE
RIGHT-WINGER.
GORSUCH AS LIKE HOLD MY BEER.
BY THE WAY CLARENCE THOMAS IS LIKE BE GLAD TO.
THOSE TWO ARE
LIKE THE RIGHT WING.
THEY ARE LIKE POLITICIANS BEING CORRUPT AND TRYING DISTRICTS IN
A WAY THAT THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY LOSE?
AND ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLICANS?
YOU CAN ARGUE THAT JOHN ROBERTS AND ALITO ARE MORE
SAVVY.
DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY GERRYMANDERING IS WRONG
EVEN IF IT IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF DEMOCRATS.
THEY ARE WRONG WHEN THEY DO IT IN MARYLAND AND COLORADO.
REPUBLICANS DO IT FAR MORE OFTEN.
BUT WHETHER IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GERRYMANDER THESE DISTRICTS.
WE SHOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A DEMOCRACY.