来源 :好视通 2019-12-12 16:19:00|东方心经马报102期



  WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court returned to the subject of partisan gerrymandering on Tuesday, appearing largely divided along ideological lines as it considered for a second time in two years whether drawing election maps to help the party in power ever violates the Constitution.

  Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court’s newest member and the one who may possess the decisive vote, expressed uneasiness about the practice.

  “Extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy,” he said. “I’m not going to dispute that.”

  He added, though, that recent developments around the nation — including state ballot initiatives establishing independent redistricting commissions, proposed legislation in Congress and State Supreme Court rulings — may make action from the United States Supreme Court less necessary.

  “Have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this court to get involved, where the other actors can’t do it?” he asked.

  Much could hang on Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion: A ruling that limited partisan gerrymandering could transform American politics, reshaping House maps in several states, often but not always to the benefit of Democrats.

  Justice Kavanaugh was an exceptionally active participant in Tuesday’s arguments, asking probing questions of both sides and displaying particularly detailed familiarity with the geography and voting districts of Maryland, his home state. But his record as an appeals court judge provides few hints about how he will approach the issue.

  The other justices seemed largely split along the usual lines, with the more conservative ones wary of announcing constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering and the more liberal ones prepared to try.

  There was certainly no consensus on how to fashion a legal standard that would separate acceptable partisanship from the kind that is unconstitutional. Justice Stephen G. Breyer proposed a numerical test, but it did not seem to gain traction with his colleagues.

  Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, on hearing one lawyer’s proposed standard, said it amounted to “I know it when I see it.”

  Last year’s cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, raised the possibility that the court might decide, for the first time, that some election maps were so warped by politics that they crossed a constitutional line. Challengers had pinned their hopes on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had expressed ambivalence on the subject, but he and his colleagues appeared unable to identify a workable constitutional test. The justices instead sidestepped the central questions in the two cases.

  When Justice Kavanaugh replaced Justice Kennedy, many election lawyers said the prospects of a decision limiting partisan gerrymandering dropped sharply. Justice Kavanaugh’s questioning on Tuesday complicated that assessment.

  On Tuesday, several justices repeated a question Justice Kennedy had asked in earlier cases: Would it be permissible for state lawmakers to make giving their own party an advantage an express legal requirement in drawing voting maps? Justice Kennedy had written that the answer had to be no.

  Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for North Carolina lawmakers who had insisted on just such a requirement, said it was proper and in some ways desirable. “The answer — sort of obviously given who I’m representing — is, ‘Absolutely, yes, that’s not a problem, and, by the way, I think actually being candid about it probably serves accountability principles in the long run.’”

  The North Carolina case, Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, was an appeal from a decision in August by a three-judge panel of a Federal District Court in North Carolina. The ruling found that Republican legislators there had violated the Constitution by drawing the districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates.

  The judges noted that the legislator responsible for drawing the map had not disguised his intentions. “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said the legislator, Representative David Lewis, a Republican. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

  The plan worked. In 2016, the court said, Republican congressional candidates won 53 percent of the statewide vote. But they won in 10 of the 13 congressional districts, or 77 percent of them.

  In 2018, the statewide vote was about evenly divided, but Democrats again secured only three seats. (After evidence of election fraud and the death last month of a longtime incumbent, two seats are open.)

  Like Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Gorsuch cited recent ballot initiatives creating nonpartisan redistricting commissions as a reason for the Supreme Court to hold its fire.

  A lawyer for one set of challengers in the North Carolina case, Emmet J. Bondurant II, said such initiatives were not a complete answer. “The vast majority of states east of the Mississippi, including specifically North Carolina,” he said, “do not have citizen initiatives.”

  Nor is it clear that independent redistricting commissions will remain available. In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s commission, which was challenged by the state’s Legislature. The vote was 5 to 4, with Justice Kennedy joining the court’s four more liberal members to form a majority.

  Mr. Clement, the North Carolina lawmakers’ lawyer, had represented the Arizona Legislature and did not seem reconciled to his loss in the case. He said the framers of the Constitution had contemplated having election maps drawn by state legislatures, not commissions.

  The Maryland case, Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726, was brought by Republican voters who said Democratic state lawmakers had in 2011 redrawn a district to retaliate against citizens who supported its longtime incumbent, Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, a Republican. That retaliation, the plaintiffs said, violated the First Amendment by diluting their voting power.

  Mr. Bartlett had won his 2010 race by a margin of 28 percentage points. In 2012, he lost to Representative John Delaney, a Democrat, by a 21-point margin.

  Last year, after the Supreme Court returned the case to the United States District Court in Maryland, a three-judge panel of that court ruled for the challengers, barred state officials from conducting further congressional elections using the 2011 maps and ordered them to draw new ones.

  Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the First Amendment may have a role to play if states draw districts to harm voters based on their political viewpoints.

  “It does seem that this is a situation where the state is taking retaliatory action against Republicans who were in that district and had a more effective vote,” he said, “and penalizing them for exercising their right to vote by moving them out to a different district.”

  Steven M. Sullivan, Maryland’s solicitor general, said the challenged district had been drawn for reasons unrelated to politics. Justice Kavanaugh seemed unpersuaded.

  “I don’t think you should run away from the obvious,” Justice Kavanaugh told Mr. Sullivan.

  In the North Carolina case, Mr. Clement warned the court about the perils it faced in taking on partisan gerrymandering.

  “Once you get into the political thicket,” he said, “you will not get out and you will tarnish the image of this court for the other cases where it needs that reputation for independence so people can understand the fundamental difference between judging and all other politics.”

  Allison J. Riggs, a lawyer for a second set of challengers in the North Carolina case, said the real danger was in not acting: “The reputational risk of doing something is much, much less than the reputational risk of doing nothing, which will be read as a green light for this kind of discriminatory rhetoric and manipulation in redistricting from here on out.”




  “【我】【们】【是】【不】【是】【都】【会】【死】?”【查】【美】【静】【瞪】【大】【了】【眼】【睛】,【一】【脸】【惊】【慌】【失】【措】。 【他】【轻】【拍】【了】【下】【她】【的】【肩】【膀】,【安】【抚】【道】:“【不】【会】【的】。” 【绿】【色】【小】【镇】【如】【果】【真】【的】【被】【摩】【根】【的】【机】【器】【大】【军】【毁】【掉】,【他】【们】【还】【可】【以】【再】【逃】,【再】【去】【别】【的】【地】【方】【建】**【的】**,【总】【能】【想】【到】【别】【的】【办】【法】。 【街】【道】【上】【的】【黑】【衣】【人】【一】【排】【接】【着】【一】【排】,【数】【量】【不】【可】【小】【视】。 【半】【个】【钟】【过】【去】,【外】【面】【恢】【复】【了】【平】

  【第】3【节】【后】【半】【段】,【双】【方】【打】【得】【很】【焦】【灼】。【国】【王】【队】【这】【边】【的】3【分】【球】【也】【是】【零】【敲】【碎】【打】,【没】【有】【成】【串】;【而】【灰】【熊】【队】【虽】【然】【内】【线】【有】【优】【势】,【可】【是】【他】【们】【的】【进】【攻】【还】【是】【显】【得】【便】【秘】,【效】【率】【并】【不】【高】。 3【节】【战】【罢】,【主】【场】【作】【战】【的】【国】【王】【队】【以】72:79,【落】【后】7【分】! 【谢】【开】8【投】7【中】,【其】【中】3【分】【球】5【投】【全】【中】,【罚】【球】4【罚】【全】【中】,【得】【到】23【分】5【个】【篮】【板】4【个】【助】【攻】2【个】【抢】

  【这】【本】【书】【得】【暂】【时】【搁】【置】【了】,【而】【且】【最】【近】【天】【天】【加】【班】,【写】【不】【好】。 【开】【始】【专】【心】【准】【备】【下】【本】【书】,【一】【个】【市】【面】【上】【应】【该】【是】【没】【有】【的】【题】【材】。 【下】【本】【书】【是】【都】【市】【生】【活】,【没】【有】【玄】【幻】,【不】【过】【套】【用】【一】【下】【现】【在】【还】【流】【行】【的】【系】【统】【流】。 【玄】【幻】【或】【者】【修】【仙】【的】【自】【己】【暂】【时】【还】【掌】【控】【不】【了】,【那】【就】【先】【从】【自】【己】【熟】【悉】【的】【一】【些】【方】【面】【下】【手】! 【努】【力】,【争】【取】【下】【本】【书】【开】【始】【了】【就】【能】【一】【直】【下】【去】,【哪】

  “【程】【瑾】【行】,【看】【招】!” 【这】【时】,【突】【然】【冒】【出】【来】【一】【辆】【马】【车】,【车】【上】【一】【个】【小】【子】【跃】【了】【起】【来】,【对】【着】【程】【瑾】【行】【出】【招】。 【程】【瑾】【行】【早】【就】【察】【觉】【到】【了】,【一】【手】【抱】【住】【了】【小】【玉】【珠】,【另】【外】【一】【手】【直】【接】【把】【那】【小】【子】【给】【抓】【住】。 “【哎】【哟】!【哎】【哟】!【娘】,【你】【不】【是】【说】【二】【哥】【很】【弱】【的】【吗】?【怎】【么】【抱】【着】【人】【还】【能】【抓】【住】【我】【啊】?” 【这】【个】【小】【子】【也】【就】【八】【岁】【的】【样】【子】,【长】【得】【虎】【头】【虎】【脑】【的】,【被】【抓】东方心经马报102期【姜】【珏】【感】【觉】【自】【己】【做】【了】【一】【个】【很】【长】【的】【萌】,【在】【梦】【里】【是】【她】【在】【九】【龙】【洞】【里】【发】【生】【的】【一】【切】,【包】【括】【进】【入】【棺】【材】【后】【看】【到】【的】【场】【景】。 【原】【来】【在】【一】【千】【年】【前】【她】【是】【师】【父】【封】【长】【离】【的】【师】【父】,【那】【慕】【离】【是】【谁】? “【你】【醒】【了】【就】【好】,【给】【你】【准】【备】【了】【米】【粥】,【躺】【了】【一】【天】【一】【夜】【了】,【先】【喝】【点】【粥】【垫】【垫】【肚】【子】。”【慕】【离】【一】【如】【既】【往】【的】【温】【柔】【地】【端】【着】【粥】【看】【着】【她】。 【姜】【珏】【点】【了】【点】【头】:“【我】【想】【起】【九】【龙】

  【在】【与】【夜】【临】【商】【讨】【好】【具】【体】【的】【过】【程】【之】【后】,【芙】【丽】【美】【娜】【便】【和】【他】【一】【同】【返】【回】【了】“【白】【鸟】”【之】【中】。 【天】【秀】【则】【继】【续】【和】【星】【月】【他】【们】【呆】【在】【一】【起】,【等】【待】【着】【合】【适】【的】【时】【机】。 【经】【过】【芙】【丽】【美】【娜】【和】【夜】【临】【的】【共】【同】【努】【力】,【在】【两】【个】【月】【之】【后】,【她】【们】【终】【于】【分】【化】【了】“【白】【鸟】”【的】【内】【部】,【在】【经】【济】【方】【面】【制】【造】【出】【了】【巨】【大】【的】【难】【题】,【而】【天】【秀】【也】【因】【为】【这】【两】【个】【月】【的】【时】【间】,【等】【级】【从】LV27【一】【路】

  【红】【毯】【节】【正】【式】【开】【始】【的】【那】【一】【天】,【孙】【艺】【换】【上】【自】【己】【的】【战】【袍】,【还】【有】【搭】【配】【的】【饰】【品】,【雄】【赳】【赳】【气】【昂】【昂】【的】【去】【了】【会】【场】。 【精】【美】【的】【礼】【服】【果】【然】【引】【起】【了】【时】【尚】【圈】【的】【轰】【动】,【以】【往】【只】【喜】【欢】【把】【目】【光】【投】【射】【到】【国】【际】【巨】【星】【上】【的】【记】【者】【们】【一】【个】【个】【都】【将】【长】【枪】【短】【炮】【对】【上】【了】【孙】【艺】。 【孙】【艺】【目】【光】【自】【信】,【姿】【态】【婀】【娜】【的】【在】【红】【毯】【上】【走】【着】,【走】【到】【记】【者】【们】【面】【前】【的】【时】【候】【多】【停】【留】【了】【一】【会】【儿】【工】【作】【人】

  “【目】【前】【还】【没】【有】,【只】【是】……”【话】【到】【嘴】【边】,【又】【硬】【是】【收】【了】【回】【去】,【她】【心】【里】【猜】【想】【那】【幕】【后】【主】【使】【定】【是】【周】【广】【文】,【可】【又】【没】【有】【证】【据】,【她】【也】【不】【好】【说】。 “【只】【是】【什】【么】?【你】【是】【不】【是】【知】【道】【些】【什】【么】?”【周】【氏】【焦】【急】【问】【道】。 “【母】【后】,【臣】【妾】【也】【只】【是】【猜】【测】,【不】【过】【昨】【日】【那】【刺】【客】【确】【确】【实】【实】【要】【杀】【的】【人】【是】【我】,【危】【急】【时】【刻】,【皇】【上】【替】【我】【挡】【了】【那】【一】【箭】。” “【你】【说】【刺】【客】【其】【实】

  【清】【晨】,【当】【第】【一】【缕】【阳】【光】【照】【进】【峡】【谷】【石】【桥】【上】【时】,【死】【亡】【之】【漠】【的】【气】【温】【就】【已】【经】【逐】【渐】【升】【了】【上】【来】。【陈】【枫】【拉】【开】【帐】【篷】【的】【门】【缝】,【阳】【光】【射】【了】【进】【来】,【照】【在】【了】【依】【依】【的】【脸】【上】,【小】【丫】【头】【的】【小】【脸】【粉】【嫩】【嫩】【的】,【看】【上】【去】【煞】【是】【可】【爱】。 “【老】【大】【早】……” 【几】【位】【早】【起】【做】【早】【餐】【的】【战】【盟】【成】【员】【看】【到】【陈】【枫】【钻】【出】【帐】【篷】,【连】【忙】【问】【候】,【陈】【枫】【礼】【貌】【性】【的】【点】【了】【点】【头】,【站】【在】【帐】【篷】【前】【伸】【了】【伸】【懒】

责任编辑:齐文飞 未经授权不得转载
关键词 >> 东方心经马报102期




网站地图 联系我们 版权声明 友情链接