THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED TO
NOT CRACKDOWN ON PARTISAN
GERRYMANDERING IN THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN.
THEY ARE OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE
TO COME BACK TO THEM WITH
SOMETHING KNOWN AS STANDING.
FIRST LET ME GIVE YOU MORE
CONTEXT.
>>LET ME GIVE YOU CONTEXT.
FIRST OF ALL IF YOU DON'T KNOW
ABOUT GERRYMANDERING THAT
IS WHERE POLITICIANS PICK THEIR
VOTERS INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY.
THEY DRIVE RIDICULOUS MAPS AND
SAY THIS WILL BE MY DISTRICT
BECAUSE THAT DISTRICT FAVORS ME.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SUING OVER
THAT.
THERE IS A REASON WHY THE
SUPREME COURT DOESN'T WANT
TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY.
THEY USE THIS EXCUSE CALLED
STANDING.
IT IS A REAL LEGAL CONCEPT IT
MAKES SENSE IF YOU AND I
ARE IN DISPUTE AND BOB COMES IN
AND WANTS TO SUE ONE OF US.
THE COURTS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO
DO WITH IT, GET OUT OF HERE.
IN THIS CASE DO THEY HAVE
STANDING TO SUE ON BEHALF
OF ALL VOTERS IN WISCONSIN.
THEY SAY NO, YOU JUST HAVE TO
WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN DISTRICT.
I THINK THE MIX NO SENSE EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS A UNANIMOUS
DECISION.
WHY?
IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT AND A
DISTRICT THAT HAS 80% DEMOCRATS
THE COURTS WILL SAY YOU CAN ONLY
TALK ABOUT YOUR OWN DISTRICT.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE CONTEXT.
BECAUSE THIS DISTRICT IS 80%
DEMOCRAT, THREE DISTRICTS AROUND
IT OR 55% REPUBLICAN AND THAT IS
HOW THEY MANIPULATE THE STATE BY
DRAWING THE MAP IN A WAY THAT
YOU WILL GET ONE DEMOCRATIC
SEAT, AND THREE LIKELY
REPUBLICAN SEATS.
THAT IS WHY SAYING YOU DON'T
HAVE STANDING MAKES NO
SENSE IN MY OPINION.
WHY DO ALL THE JUSTICES AGREED
TO IT?
THEY HAVE THEIR PLAN
WHICH IS I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL
AFTER THE 2018 ELECTIONS.
SOME WILL SAY THIS IS TOO
CONSPIRATORIAL.
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE
NOT PARTISAN.
HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THEIR
DECISIONS?
IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN
OVER THE HOUSE AND HAVE A
LANDSLIDE ELECTION IN 2018 AND
2019 THEY WILL COME BACK AND SAY
GERRYMANDERING, IT IS A BAD
IDEA.
THEY DO THE REDISTRICTING EVERY
10 YEARS AFTER THE CENSUS.
IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN BIG IN 2018
THEY MIGHT WIN HUGE IN 2020
AND THEN THEY WOULD GET TO DRAW
THE MAPS.
SO REPUBLICANS ON THE COURT SAY
GERRYMANDERING GETS A BAD IDEA.
IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN 2018 THEN
THEY GET TO DO A DO OVER AND SAY
YOUR DISTRICT IS FINE.
SO WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS GO
ALONG WITH IT?
BECAUSE AT LEAST THIS
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT.
AGAIN THIS IS MY SPECULATION,
THE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT
DOESN'T SAY THE GERRYMANDERING
IS OKAY.
SO THEY SAY FINE, LET'S PUNT,
AND THEN FOUR OF THEM WRITE AN
OPINION AND SAY WHEN THEY COME
BACK WE WILL MAKE A DECISION.
>> I DO WANT TO MENTION THE
ACTIONS TAKEN BY CLARENCE THOMAS
AND NEIL GORSUCH, THEY
DISSENTED FROM THIS PART OF THE
RULING BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT TO
THROW THIS OUT COMPLETELY.
THEY DON'T EVEN WANT THIS CASE
TO COME BACK EVEN WITH STANDING.
THEY JUST WANT TO THROW IT OUT.
>>CLARENCE THOMAS IS ALWAYS BEEN
THIS WAY.
HE ALMOST NEVER ASKED THE
QUESTION IS BARELY AWAKE DURING
THE PROCEEDINGS ñ AT THE END HE
IS LIKE WHAT DO REPUBLICANS
WANT?
YEAH GERRYMANDERING IS
AWESOME, TOTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL.
NOW NEIL GORSUCH AS SO
CONSERVATIVE HE IS GONE TO THE
RIGHT OF SAMUEL ALITO WHO USED
TO BE THE OTHER MASSIVE
RIGHT-WINGER.
GORSUCH AS LIKE HOLD MY BEER.
BY THE WAY CLARENCE THOMAS IS
LIKE BE GLAD TO.
THOSE TWO ARE
LIKE THE RIGHT WING.
THEY ARE LIKE POLITICIANS BEING
CORRUPT AND TRYING DISTRICTS IN
A WAY THAT THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY
LOSE?
AND ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLICANS?
YOU CAN ARGUE THAT
JOHN ROBERTS AND ALITO ARE MORE
SAVVY.
DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU
DON'T.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY
GERRYMANDERING IS WRONG
EVEN IF IT IS TO THE ADVANTAGE
OF DEMOCRATS.
THEY ARE WRONG WHEN THEY DO IT
IN MARYLAND AND COLORADO.
REPUBLICANS DO IT FAR MORE
OFTEN.
BUT WHETHER IT IS THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO
GERRYMANDER THESE DISTRICTS.
WE SHOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A
DEMOCRACY.
