Alito opposed to Baker v. Carr

[Zkribbler]

The problem is, Imran, that the Constitution requires that states have equal representation in the Senate. Indeed, the Constitution prohibits amending the Constitution to change this situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The problem is, Imran, that the Constitution requires that states have equal representation in the Senate. Indeed, the Constitution prohibits amending the Constitution to change this situation.

Indeed... but do you think that withstanding that provision that the Supreme Court would state there are due process concerns in the Senate's formulation? I'm posing a hypothetical. I don't think even Brennan thought that would be the case. However, the states were easy pickings during the Warren Court.

If there were discriminatory districts, the Court should fix those districts, but it felt it could go as far as to take away the State's rights to define its own governments, as long as they stay republican (and if you think one man, one vote is required for a republican form of government, look at the US in the early 1900s).

If you asked every Supreme Court justice if the Senate violates the equal representation or due process clauses if applied to them, I guarentee that, to a man, they'd say of course not.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you asked every Supreme Court justice if the Senate violates the equal representation or due process clauses if applied to them, I guarentee that, to a man, they'd say of course not.

How can anyone argue that giving the citizenry of Montana the same number of Senators as the citizens of California is "equal representation?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
How can anyone argue that giving the citizenry of Montana the same number of Senators as the citizens of California is "equal representation?"

It's equal representation for each state. You get to decide your Senators for your state and get the same representation as others in your state. Though I should have said 'equal protection' rather than 'equal representation'.

Though that reminds, the funny thing is the Dems who were decrying this statement by Alito are also the ones who said in Bush v. Gore that the Supreme Court should have let the state decide and it was a political question . After all, the decision was reached under equal protection jurisprudence.

[Ramo]

I don't know how you can say the state districts were more discriminatory than state divisions. A black person has a greater hurdle in a state like, say, Arizona than in, say, New York in getting his voice heard (because of minority percentages) for their Senator.

Eh? This is the situation in any districting scheme. National or state level. Even in the best redistricting scheme. Some places would have more minority votes than others.

And an average citizen in New York has less of a say in the Senate (per citizen) then an average citizen of Arizona (dividing the number of citizens for each Senator).

To use Zkrib's example, CA is not three orders of magnitude more populous than MT. Some of the state legislative districts were far worse than than the Senate in terms of ensuring one person, one vote.

If the problem was discriminatory districts based on race, the solution is to get rid of those districts, not totally overhauling the way states create districts.

Race based redistricting is on far more tenuous grounds than Baker. One person, one vote is an easy standard to meet, but having non-racist districts is pretty damn nebulous.

What was behind the changes were ideas of one man, one vote. Wouldn't it be expected that one man, one vote would be important enough to fall into due process?

Maybe, but SCOTUS has not agreed. In any case, your reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't pass muster since a. the line from Baker to dismantling the Senate is questionable at best and b. I don't have any problem with turning the Senate into a more democratic body.

If the discrimination was NOT great enough to fall upon due process, and, thus, barely gets into equal protection, then why shouldn't the Court have fallen back on it being a political question as it had so many times in the past?

Because Bolling explicitly says that the hurdle for meeting the requirements of equal protection is lesser than the hurdle for substantive due process.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because Bolling explicitly says that the hurdle for meeting the requirements of equal protection is lesser than the hurdle for substantive due process.

And what is the hurdle for passing a political question? I don't think the Court should simply put aside something which falls neatly into political question on something that barely falls above equal protection, but isn't important enough to break substantive due process.

One person, one vote is an easy standard to meet, but having non-racist districts is pretty damn nebulous.

Indeed, but race is the real reason the districts were standardized in the first place. But they decided to go whole hog and rather than focusing on race, they wanted to change the whole system. Having it state Senators for every county could have worked as well as a neutral determinant, and since changing county lines is rare, any change could be subject to high scrutiny.

That should be something that the people should decide.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that it is quite ironic that many states which wanted to emulate the US federal government were told that they were doing something unconstitutional (I'm talking about states not known for racism as well).

Alito, as well as myself, have questions on whether that was something sanctioned by the Constitution, and if the Supreme Court went waay too far (as it also did in bussing... the Warren Court was not known for restraint, as we all know).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Basically, what I'm getting at is that it is quite ironic that many states which wanted to emulate the US federal government were told that they were doing something unconstitutional (I'm talking about states not known for racism as well).

Alito, as well as myself, have questions on whether that was something sanctioned by the Constitution, and if the Supreme Court went waay too far (as it also did in bussing... the Warren Court was not known for restraint, as we all know).

Article V requires that the States have equal sufferage in the Senate.

Article IV § 4 requires the States have a republican form of government. Representing various chunks of land rather than people is not what is usually meant by "republicanism."

Plus, you also have the problem of stare decisis. Are you and Alito simply going to ignore this well established doctrine??

Sigh, looks like I'll have to testify against Imran when he's nominated for the Supreme Court.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Representing various chunks of land rather than people is not what is usually meant by "republicanism".

Seeing as how that system existed for over 160 years of the United States, I'd argue that it is. I don't think the founders were interested in invalidating all state districts by that statement.

While it only applies to the states, do you not think that the Senate is a republican form of legislature? I'd argue it most assuredly is.

Are you and Alito simply going to ignore this well established doctrine??

Since when did Alito say he was going to strike down those cases?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Seeing as how that system existed for over 160 years of the United States, I'd argue that it is. I don't think the founders were interested in invalidating all state districts by that statement.

Yes, but the long trend of Constitutional interpretation has been to expand human rights, not contract them. I submit that American citizens are far more important than huge tracks of mostly empty land. Land don't vote; people do.

While it only applies to the states, do you not think that the Senate is a republican form of legislature? I'd argue it most assuredly is.

It most assuredly is NOT! Not when a Californian's vote is equal to only a tiny fraction of a Nevadian's vote. A republican form of government is supposed to represent the citizens.

Since when did Alito say he was going to strike down those cases?

Wasn't that the subject (or at least the implication) of the opening post of this thread?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Yes, but the long trend of Constitutional interpretation has been to expand human rights, not contract them. I submit that American citizens are far more important than huge tracks of mostly empty land. Land don't vote; people do.

Expansion of rights doesn't matter. What matters is that they were republican forms of government. Today we are more of a democratic republic, but that doesn't invalidate the republican forms of government then.

It most assuredly is NOT! Not when a Californian's vote is equal to only a tiny fraction of a Nevadian's vote. A republican form of government is supposed to represent the citizens.

All a republican form of government is supposed to do is to have the people elect representatives. It doesn't say anything about making them equal. That is what a democratic republic does. After all, Rome was a 'republic' even though only the nobles voted.

The Senate is most definetly a republican body.

Wasn't that the subject (or at least the implication) of the opening post of this thread?

It was a dumb implication if it was one. Saying you got into the law because you disagreed with X, doesn't mean that 20 years later you are going to strike X down, especially if you've been an Appellate judge for over 10 years.

[Zkribbler]

You're right on that last point. The initial post quotes Alito in his application for the Reagan job:

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.

Alito just says that decades ago, he disagreed with the decisions. Such a statement would justify that he be questioned in this area but does not imply he would ignore stare decisis and overrule, say, Reynolds v. Sims.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
Alito = scumbag

Machinegun Sammy Scalito

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Are you saying that if there were no 'tests' that the blacks in the South would have good representation in the Senate? I would think in states were they were outnumbered, they'd have no chance of electing a black man.

Why would they have to necessarily elect a black man? There have been white allies/sympathizers in our country's history.