THE toughest part of being a Supreme Court justice is not deciding who wins. It is writing the opinion explaining why the winning party should prevail. And since Supreme Court decisions serve as guides to courts in future cases, a majority opinion needs to do more than provide a justification for why A wins over B. It must anticipate similar cases that could arise and draw lines showing how those ought to be resolved.
On March 28th, in a case contesting Maryland map from 2011 that painted a solidly red congressional district blue, the justices seemed to feel a particularly heavy burden. This is not surprising. Benisek v Lamone marks the second time the court has stepped into an electoral politics minefield this term, and in three months’ time, the justices must decide whether to try to put the brakes on partisan gerrymandering—a scourge of American democracy whereby politicians rig elections in their own favour. The problem is, defusing some mines risks tripping others.
Benisek concerns a rather brazen move by Maryland...Continue reading
Source: United States https://ift.tt/2J1VCfP
EmoticonEmoticon