Fake news comes to the Supreme Court

[DonViejo]

By Dana Milbank Opinion writer October 3 at 7:54 PM

At Tuesday’s argument before the Supreme Court about gerrymandering — the science of using map-drawing and Big Data to keep ruling parties in power even when a majority votes for the opposition — Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was searching for a way to uphold the unsavory practice. But there was a problem: Gerrymandering is making a mockery of the right to vote in Wisconsin, the focus of the case before the court, where a redrawn map allowed Republicans to hold more than 60 percent of the state assembly while getting less than half the vote. And so Alito resorted to subterfuge. He waited until the closing minutes and hit Paul M. Smith, the lawyer arguing against the Wisconsin plan, with the last question of the argument.

“You paint a very dire picture about gerrymandering and its effects,” Alito said, “but I was struck by something in the seminal article by your expert, Mr.?McGhee, and he says there, ‘I show that the effects of party control on bias are small and decay rapidly, suggesting that redistricting is at best a blunt tool for promoting partisan interests.’ So he was wrong in that?” The question baffled Smith, who said he would need to see the context.

“Well,” Alito retorted, “that’s what he said.”

No, it isn’t.

I called Eric McGhee, the expert, after the argument. The quote Alito pulled was not from the “seminal article” McGhee co-wrote proposing the legal standard for gerrymandering at the center of the case. It was from an earlier McGhee paper, using data from the 1970s through 1990s. In the paper at the center of the case, by contrast, “we used updated data from the 2000s,” McGhee told me, “and the story is very different. It’s gotten a lot worse in the last two cycles. .?.?. The data are clear.”

Why would Alito resort to this sleight of hand? Perhaps because it’s clear that if he stuck to the facts, he’d have to acknowledge that the growing abuse of gerrymandering threatens democracy.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fake-news-comes-to-the-supreme-court/2017/10/03/3a17f86c-a87b-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Republicans dont become judges to enforce the law and the constitution.

They get into our court system to gain financial profit for themselves by gaining it for their friends so they indirectly benefit.

With few exceptions, this is what the entire court system will look like in 10 years.

NOTHING we now take for granted will exist.

I could do a list but it is too depressing each time I do it.

[BigmanPigman]

2. Sadly, I agree.

[Dustlawyer]

11. By and large that is true.

The Texas Supreme Court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rule in favor of corporations over individuals over 90% of the time.

If we get a big verdict here in Texas we know we will still have to settle it for less because the odds are it will get remanded for a new trial. We had a life insurance case where a company refused to pay. It took over 7 years but we got a $1.2 million verdict which with pre-judgment interest put it over $3 million. The insurance companies attorney, the biggest fundraiser for the all Republican State Supreme Court, offered $15,000 to settle. The Court remanded for a new trial even though there was no reversible error.

When they say they don't want "activist judges," they mean Democratic judges.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. What you are describing is sick, insane and disgusting and it will get worse.

Idiots who vote for cons will change their minds ONE at a time like the guy about Vegas saying he is now for gun control, but it has to hit them personally before they change and by the time enough of them learn about the courts it will be so too late it wont even be funny.

[Jim Beard]

13. The sickest part is we elect them, we choose them.

[Amimnoch]

14. Once upon a time we did.

Voter suppression.
ballot tampering.
Gerrymandering.
Foreign government assistance/interference with collusion.

We used to elect them. Now they just rig it for themselves.

[Jim Beard]

16. Sorry, should have been more specific, it is the Texas Supreme Court that was mentioned

that I was referring to.

[Dustlawyer]

18. You left out one very big one.

When someone wants to run they find they need support of a Party and/or a wealthy benefactor(s). You never get off of the ground is you don't. Used to be for Democrats you had to get union support, otherwise you were in a Primary against their candidate. You want to be judge, you need support of your Party. They WILL be running their chosen candidate, if it is not you then it is really an uphill battle.

Our choices are pre-selected by these "King Makers". We really need Publicly Funded Elections with some methods for real, but qualified people to run. We also need citizens to be informed about their candidates and engaged in the process. A lot to ask for for sure!

[onit2day]

15. Hopefully enough will become enough and repubs

will get the boot and their damages to our democracy will fade away quickly.

[Eliot Rosewater]

17. I admire the positive approach, I really do.

Problem is everything comes down to our courts, Supreme Court, federal courts, etc.

In the next few years hundreds of judges will be appointed who are extreme rightwing ideologists who will wipe out the America we know and love.

Name something you will do today, I will show you.

[Towlie]

3. I'm no lawyer, but to me that sounds like hearsay evidence.

Before an expert's testimony, or any testimony for that matter, is used in a decision, doesn't a court have to actually hear the testimony directly from the witness?

[unblock]

5. the concept of hearsay really comes into play in findings of fact, not of law

and therefore, hearsay is relevant almost exclusively at the trial court level.

courts of appeal and the supreme court mostly address matters of law and constitutional interpretation, and they can get their knowledge and expertise however the can. obviously they should prefer to do their research properly, but there's no formal standard beyond the basics of both sides can present experts, experts can submit amicus briefs, etc.

*not a lawyer

[uponit7771]

4. K&R

[Le Gaucher]

6. Why the fuck does he bother asking questions if he knows which way he is going to vote.

He should just shut his mouth like the other conservative idiot judge instead of asking stupid questions

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Confirmation bias. When prejudiced, you (Alito) only remember that which supports the prejudice. .nt

[lark]

8. Alito is part and parcel of the SCOTUS sumbag Repugs who are traitors.

He is a traitor to the ideals and concepts of the constitution and lies without conscience to continue Repug stealing of elections. Disgusting pig-slime, all 5 of them.

[Mr. Ected]

9. The proof will be in the pudding

If Alito writes his opinion, be it concurring or dissenting, he will need to expound upon his application of laws to the evidence before him. If he relies on articles out of context to make his arguments, he will be trashed and scorned by his colleagues.

[Augiedog]

10. Why is anyone surprised that a right wing asshole lies. Even a Supreme Court asshole?