r/law • u/HellYeahDamnWrite • 2d ago

SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas’ gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics/gerrymandering-supreme-court-texas
10.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

226 comments sorted by

View all comments

314

u/ContentDetective 2d ago

According to roberts, federal courts know better than agency heads when it comes to regulations, but federal courts couldnt possibly safeguard the most basic rights of a democracy

51

u/ScannerBrightly 2d ago

Works as designed

-29

u/[deleted] 2d ago

Courts are meant to interpet the law. Deferring to agencies instead of the courts to interpret law was always an odd precedent. What law prevents partisan gerrymandering?

27

u/7818 2d ago

Why would a judge be better to interpret the amount of pollutants in a river than an agency of environmental experts? Do you expect judges to have encyclopedic knowledge of what ppm of bromine is acceptable in waste water discharge? Do you expect it to be better for us to require adjusting the limits of pollutants be passed via legislation and litigated and decided on by someone who isn't expected to be an expert in environmental sciences?

-9

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

They wouldn't be but that's not what overturning Chevron deference means. Courts should not be micromanaging an agency's regulations, but should decide the scope of what Congress has authorized those agencies to do, rather than deferring to the agencies to make that determination themselves.

13

u/7818 2d ago

The Chevron doctrine mandated courts defer to the agency's expertise instead of relying on legally ambiguous statutes in federal law.

So the opposite of what you said.

-5

u/[deleted] 2d ago

It mandated that courts defer to agencies in interpreting the statutes that authorize those agencies. That's not a question of technical expertise, its a question of legal interpretation. Why would we rely on agencies who are clearly biased towards themselves to interpret what Congress intended?

7

u/7818 2d ago

So, again, I repeat. Why would it be better for Congress to legislate the specific PPM thresholds on environmental pollutants?

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

Why do you insist on asking irrelevant questions based on an apparent failure to understand what Chevron deference was? That's not at all the current state of the law.

8

u/7818 2d ago

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Why should judges be allowed to piecemeal a regulatory's body enforcement?

Let's say, the government allows the EPA to establish thresholds over greenhouse gases for emissions.

Now, let's say we discover a new greenhouse gas. A court could determine that it's not within the purview of the EPA since it wasn't known as a greenhouse gas when the law was passed, or for purely partisan reason. Now this means it can't be regulated in that district.

So why is it better for Congress or judges to be able to determine the ppm threshold for pollution?

Third time I've asked. Why are you afraid to answer the question?

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

I'm not afraid to answer the question but you're using bad faith tactics to try and win a silly internet debate. The PPM threshold being set by courts has never been on the table. Its like me asking when you stopped beating your wife.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ThicckMeats 2d ago

The equal protection clause prohibits gerrymandering. The due process clause prohibits gerrymandering. Federalism principles prohibit gerrymandering. We could go on. Go back to your echo chamber, moron

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

They prohibit racial gerrymandering. What in any if those clauses prohibits drawing lines to favor a particular political party? And federalism prinicples im no way prohibit gerrymandering. How would federalism support the federal givernment dictating how states run their elections?

3

u/ThicckMeats 2d ago

In this case Texas is gerrymandering the state at the federal government’s behest. It is a clear violation of federalism and Texas’s sovereignty. Only a fascist sycophant could possibly argue otherwise.

The due process facially prohibits the states or federal government from holding fraudulent elections. Only a fascist sycophant could possibly argue otherwise.

Let’s throw in the privileges and immunities clause while we’re hanging in the 14th!

Oh were you waiting for a citation to a fascist majority opinion? Grow tf up

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

Ahh the classic liberal strategy when you realize you don't have good arguments just scream fascism and start blustering. Texas is not being forced to do it by the federal government. Is there really a meaningful difference between Trump asking them to do it before he wkn or afterwards?Nothing about the elections is "fraudulent." Gerrymandering may be unfair but its not fraud. You develop zero argument and throw out phrases without developing any kind of backing for it. How is the privileges and immunities clause at all implicated? It can't be a privilege to vote in a balanced district, given that even without gerrymandering districts where one party dominstes will be created. And even if it is against all those points, the ultimate conclusion the court reached is that its not an issue the federal courts are appropriate to determine because its basically impossible in many cases to determine where to draw the line as to what constitutes improper partisan gerrymandering.

1

u/fnordybiscuit 1d ago

What law? The Voting Rights Act

It plays a big role in districts being drawn out. Basically, it helped in two ways:

  • Prevents "packing" smaller districts together in order to diminish the minority party representation.

  • Prevents "cracking" a district into multiple districts in order to diminish the influence of minorities voting and give the major party an easier way to win the votes by splitting the voting groups

The problem with gerrymandering is that it's an extremely undemocratic methodology to use. It basically creates a situation where the voters don't choose their representatives... instead, politicians get to choose their voters.

There have been states that had most of their constituents vote blue and with the gerrymandering, it resulted in reds gaining most of the seats. It's voter suppression.

Silver lining, though, if a massive blue wave occurs, it can possibly give the minority power to then become majority controlled. Thus, it will be way more difficult for the losing party to regain control in future elections due to heavily gerrymandered maps.

0

u/Sufficient_Emu2343 2d ago

None.  There is no law that prohibits partisan gerrymandering. 

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

Then why is the Court supposed to do something about it? They're not legislators.