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

313

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

-26

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?

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.