Alito’s Fear Courts Could Be Transformed ‘Into Weapons of Political Warfare’ Is Not Unfounded

By Hans von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery | March 28, 2019   The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in two cases challenging congressional district lines drawn for partisan advantage. The question before the justices is whether state legislators violate the Constitution when they draw up district lines with politics in mind.  

Partisan politics has been part-and-parcel of the redistricting process since Gov. Elbridge Gerry gave his name to the concept of partisan map drawing in 1812 with a state Senate district in Massachusetts. Even the challengers in Tuesday’s two cases don’t claim that there should not be any politics involved in redistricting.

So how much politics is acceptable, and how much politics is too much? It’s the political corollary of Goldilocks’ dilemma.

The challengers in this case are trying to convince the Supreme Court that there is some nebulous line marking the boundary of “too much politics”—a boundary that exists nowhere in the text of the Constitution..........To Read More.....

My Take - There are a number of facts made clear here.  First, the federal judicary is out of control.  Secondly, the Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.  Third, Congress has failed it's Constitutional responsibility to rein in the federal judiciary.  Fourth, we need a 28th Amendment to end the lifetime appointments to the federal judicary.