Talk:Rucho v. Common Cause
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
Writing style
editThis article is horrendously written. Lots of nonsense sentences. I'd take a crack at editing but this is not my area of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterngard (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- There's no reason you can't try. It might be easier when the decision is out (which is due by end of month). --Masem (t) 01:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Overturn previous cases?
editDoes the ruling in this case partially overturn the rulings in Davis v. Bandemer and/or Vieth v. Jubelirer? Or did Vieth already overturn the ruling in Davis that partisan gerrymandering was justiciable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing was overturned in this, the language "overturned" doesn't at all in the slip decision. Partisan gerrymandering is still unconstitutional, but it is not the federal court's place to make decisions when partisan gerrymandering has occurred. --Masem (t) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Masem:
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that political gerrymandering, such as occurred in this case, is properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. [...] “[J]udicial action must be governed by standard, by rule,” and must be “principled, rational, and based upon reasoned distinctions” found in the Constitution or laws. [...] Judicial review of partisan gerrymandering does not meet those basic requirements.
Nothing was overturned in this [...] Partisan gerrymandering is still unconstitutional
is incorrect. The ruling was clear: redistricting is solely the purview of the Legislature involved unless the Constitution creates an exception, which it does when racial discrimination is involved—as the court found in Shaw v. Reno—but not when partisan "discrimination" is involved and partisan gerrymandering is thus constitutional. This finding overturns Davis v. Bandemer which ruled that the Constitution contained such an exception for partisan gerrymandering through the Equal Protection Clause. 144.134.67.38 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)the language "overturned" doesn't [appear] at all in the slip decision
hence the use of the term de facto, which is common to articles concerning these kind of cases. 144.134.67.38 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is, we cannot make this legal argument ourselves. Nothing explicit in the majority of Rucho says it, I have seen no reliable sources say it. So it is original research to make this claim ourselves. I realize it may seem like it has been overturned, but without explicit statement in the slip opinion or the analysis of law professors or similar, we can't make that claim on WP. --Masem (t) 13:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)