Supreme Court Discovers New Love for Electing Losers
The Times gingerly articulates that the Court, which once called partisan gerrymandering an 'unjust and excessive partisan imbalance,' has now effectively greenlit it. This isn't a sudden philosophical awakening; it's the culmination of a decades-long project by conservative legal groups, often funded by dark money, to reshape governance through the judiciary when elections don't go their way.
Justice Samuel Alito, who opined these boundaries are 'non-justiciable,' has consistently voted to expand corporate power and restrict voting rights, aligning with objectives of organizations like the Federalist Society, which receives millions from undisclosed sources. So, the Court is no longer 'wary' of partisan gerrymandering? How quaint. They've simply confirmed that some votes count more
than others, provided they come from the 'right' districts. Perhaps 'Going All In' is the new jurisprudential term for 'ensuring election outcomes even when you lose the popular vote.' One might wonder if this 'judicial restraint' extends to campaign finance, or only to the citizens' right to fair representation.