Alito opposed to Baker v. Carr

[Ramo]

In Alito's application for a job at Reagan's Justice Dept., he wrote:

In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/alito/111585stmnt2.html

By "reapportionment," he means the decisions Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Syms where the Waren Court ended the practice of drawing state legislative districts such that sparsely populated areas could be equally represented as densely populated areas. Basically these decisions enshrined the principle of one person, one vote.

Without Baker and Reynolds, we might have ultrareactionaries in permanent control of state legislatures by drawing districts to disenfranchise urban voters. And there wouldn't be a damn thing to do electorally.

While most important progressive reforms such as desegregation occurred principally through popular action, this was not one of them. When Earl Warren was asked what his principal legacy would be, his answer wasn't Brown. It was Baker.

And Alito, in 1985, expressed opposition to that decision. In doing so, he expressed opposition to the basic tenant of democracy.

Recently, Biden (D - MBNA) threatened to filibuster Alito on these grounds:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13218958.htm

"The part that jeopardizes it (Alito's nomination) more is his quote in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment - one man, one vote," Biden told "Fox News Sunday." "The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that," Biden said.

[...]

"If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision - that is, the idea of Baker v. Carr, one man, one vote - then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. ... That would include a filibuster, if need be," Biden said.

And if Alito still holds such a reprehensible view, he deserves to be filibustered.

[Arrian]

Ugh.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

This is far more trouble than any Roe v. Wade problem. Even if Roe were overturned, all that would mean is that each state could legislatively determine whether abortion would be legal or not.

Reynolds requires state legislatures to represent people, not land. For example, before Reynolds, California Senators represented counties. This means that Alpine County (pop. 1, 147) had an equal vote with Los Angeles County (pop. 9,049,557). Giving Alpiners 9,000 times the voting power of Angelinos violates the clause of the constitution requiring the States to be republics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Reynolds requires state legislatures to represent people, not land. For example, before Reynolds, California Senators represented counties. This means that Alpine County (pop. 1, 147) had an equal vote with Los Angeles County (pop. 9,049,557). Giving Alpiners 9,000 times the voting power of Angelinos violates the clause of the constitution requiring the States to be republics.

Um... isn't that the same way the US Senate is set up (with States replacing Counties). Are you saying that the US Congress is not a republic?

Frankly I really don't have much of a problem with Alito's opinion on this matter.

[Bill3000]

Um... isn't that the same way the US Senate is set up (with States replacing Counties). Are you saying that the US Congress is not a republic?

Huge difference between the HoR, w hich is meant to be proportional to the population inside a state, and the senate. If a Representative is supposed to be representing a portion of a state proportional to the population, it should be an equal amount so that every person in each individual constituency has an equal say. This is quite different from the Senate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Bill3000
Huge difference between the HoR, w hich is meant to be proportional to the population inside a state, and the senate. If a Representative is supposed to be representing a portion of a state proportional to the population, it should be an equal amount so that every person in each individual constituency has an equal say. This is quite different from the Senate.

What in the Sam Hell are your blabbering out? If California had Senators representing Counties. That's the same as Senators representing States in the Congress.

[Ramo]

Um... isn't that the same way the US Senate is set up (with States replacing Counties). Are you saying that the US Congress is not a republic?

The House, which is based on one person, one vote, has most of the power in Congress (the Senate is mostly a check on the essentially popularly elected House and Presidency). If it were the other way around, or if the one-person, one-vote bodies were abolished, the US would indeed be far less democratic.

Personally, I think that the Senate should be elected like the House (but with nonpartisan redistricting), and the House should be elected through proportional representation (rather than FPTP).

[Ramo]

Giving Alpiners 9,000 times the voting power of Angelinos violates the clause of the constitution requiring the States to be republics.

Actually, Brennan said that ithe equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was violated by this form of disenfranchising urban voters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The House, which is based on one person, one vote, has most of the power in Congress (the Senate is mostly a check on the essentially popularly elected House and Presidency).

If you want to think of it that way. While the House supposedly has the power to initiate spending bills, sometimes the Senate has throughout history. And the Senate is the body that confirms federal judges and approves treaties.

The Senate is, by far, more powerful than the House. You can say it is because it was intended as a 'check', but I could say the same thing for the House, intended as a check on the Senate (as in any bicameral legislature both houses are checks on each other).

[Ramo]

And the Senate is the body that confirms federal judges and approves treaties.

As I said, it also serves as a check on the President (who, despite the electoral college, is essentially popularly elected).

While the House supposedly has the power to initiate spending bills, sometimes the Senate has throughout history.

And the House generally sends those bills back to the Senate with a blue slip, without action.

You can say it is because it was intended as a 'check', but I could say the same thing for the House, intended as a check on the Senate

You also have structures in the Senate that make opposition easier than action (i.e. the filibuster).

This is all irrelevent to the point that the Senate is indeed anti-democratic, and would be changed if I had my way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I said, it also serves as a check on the President (who, despite the electoral college, is essentially popularly elected).

The electoral college was a very BIG 'despite' until the late 20th century .

This is all irrelevent to the point that the Senate is indeed anti-democratic, and would be changed if I had my way.

And how is the 'anti-democratic' nature of the Senate relevant to anything at all here?

[JohnT]

I see that B v C was in 1961?

How did the Republic survive prior to that?

[Ramo]

The electoral college was a very BIG 'despite' until the late 20th century

Not really. The winner of the popular vote is almost always the winner of the electoral vote. And when that's not the case, the election's invariably extremely close.

And how is the 'anti-democratic' nature of the Senate relevant to anything at all here?

Huh? How is it not relevant?

I believe that Baker is good since I believe in democracy.

[Ramo]

How did the Republic survive prior to that?

Not very well. Poor people and minorities weren't exactly decently treated by their state legislatures.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really. The winner of the popular vote is almost always the winner of the electoral vote. And when that's not the case, the election's invariably extremely close.

Almost always, but electors had (and still have) a lot of power. You do end up voting for the elector, who votes for the person. And, yes, the system allows a loser in the popular vote to win the Presidency. It also makes races much closer than their popular vote would indicate (except for a few occasions).

Huh? How is it not relevant?

I don't see the anti-democraticness of the US Senate as an issue in either case, do you? Doesn't matter how democratic the Senate is, it isn't going anywhere. However, the court has ruled that a similar situation in the states violates the equal protection clause.

How democratic the Senate is is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the issue at all. Unless you think the Court is going to strike down the Senate. In which case, you are nuts.