Gorsuch: Bad As You Thought (Gerrymanderin’ So Cool Edition)

Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern reports on a 5-4 Supreme Court decision today upholding gerrymandered state legislative districts in Texas–a decision ominous for both its short-term effects, and what it broadcast about the views of Neil Gorsuch, Colorado’s radical native son appointed by President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court last year:

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a bitterly divided 5–4 decision upholding all but one of Texas’ gerrymandered districts, ruling they were not drawn with impermissible racial bias. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion reverses a lower court’s conclusion that Texas gerrymandered both congressional and state legislative districts in order to curb the power of minority voters. The ruling is a brutal blow to civil rights advocates, who amassed a vast record of evidence that Texas mapmakers diluted the votes of Hispanic residents.

What may be most remarkable about Monday’s decision in Abbott v. Perez, however, is Justice Neil Gorsuch’s effort to position himself as a fierce opponent of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court already gutted a central provision of the VRA in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder. Now, in Perez, Gorsuch has joined Justice Clarence Thomas’ crusade to hobble the law even further by holding that it does not prohibit racial gerrymandering. Were the court to adopt Gorsuch’s interpretation, the VRA could never again be used to stop racist mapmakers from diluting minority votes.

In a different case concerning state-level gerrymandering before the court in October of last year, Gorsuch expressed a similar view–and was smacked down for it by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, it’s pretty clear—if you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2.” In other words, Gorsuch was saying, why should the Court involve itself in the subject of redistricting at all—didn’t the Constitution fail to give the Court the authority to do so?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is bent with age, can sometimes look disengaged or even sleepy during arguments, and she had that droopy look today as well. But, in this moment, she heard Gorsuch very clearly, and she didn’t even raise her head before offering a brisk and convincing dismissal. In her still Brooklyn-flecked drawl, she grumbled, “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” There might have been an audible woo that echoed through the courtroom. (Ginsburg’s comment seemed to silence Gorsuch for the rest of the arguments.) [Pols emphasis]

But today, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that these Texas districts had been drawn to reduce minority representation in all but one of the pertinent districts. And in the concurring opinion from Gorsuch and arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, as Stern continues, we see that Gorsuch would have gone much farther:

In a brief concurrence, Thomas explained that he would’ve gone further than Alito. Rather than reject the plaintiffs’ VRA claims, he wrote, the court should have overturned decades of precedent to hold that the VRA does not prohibit racial gerrymandering at all. Thomas has argued this point for years, often joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. On Monday, Gorsuch took up the mantle, conspicuously signing onto Thomas’ assertion that the VRA allows mapmakers to dilute minority votes.

It is difficult to overstate how devastating this theory would be if it ever gained majority support on the Supreme Court. [Pols emphasis]

During the confirmation hearings for Gorsuch early in 2017, Colorado Democrats still reeling from Trump’s election were subjected to considerable pressure to support “native son” Gorsuch. This was despite the fact that Gorsuch’s record was distantly to the right of the political mainstream–fully understood to be more radical than Antonin Scalia, the Justice he succeeded on the court. Former Gov. Bill Ritter led a long list of (nominally) Democratic local attorneys and officials–not to mention the Denver Post editorial board–who implored skeptics to give Gorsuch’s prodigious intellect a chance to shine.

Well folks, at least we know just how wrong they were now.

1 Shares

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Fuck Bill Ritter. And Chuck Plunkett.

  2. ParkHill says:

    One solution might be for the Democrats to gerrymander the hell out of all the Blue states. Force the Supremes to come up with a rational answer.

    The only thing I can figure is that the Republicans on the Supreme Court are delaying and holding on as long as they can in the hope of maintaining as many Republican states as possible. 

    Personally, I hope the dam breaks this year and we get latino voters swamping the electorate in Arizona, Texas and Florida. I can dream, can't I.

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      It might not happen, PH, but I like the way you think. OTOH, if the Screaming Yam keeps pushing at those brown voters, he may just make them all the more determined to GOTV.

  3. Gilpin Guy says:

    Scalia would have voted the same way so it's a status quo decision.  Certainly tells minorities in Texas what exactly they have to lose, a fair vote.  What would the world be like if Bill Clinton hadn't screwed up and Al Gore made those Supreme Court appointments instead of Bush?  What a fuck up Clinton was/is/will be.

  4. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Of late, GG has been blaming Bill Clinton for everything, including Cain slaying Abel.  He's getting almost Zappylike in this obsession.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      Ouch.  I'm in Zapper territory with my comments.  Will rectify in the future but Alito and Roberts are still just as illegitimate and damaging as Gorsuch.  What partisan picks for a truly non-partisan position.

  5. ZappateroZappatero says:

    So glad SFL BENNET normalized the theft of a Supreme Court seat for his colleague Mitch McConnell. 

  6. RepealAndReplace says:

    Let's not forget that the Republicans also stole Abe Fortas' seat in 1968. If only FDR's court-packing scheme had worked……

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.