In the latest Supreme Court argument regarding Gill v. Whitford, about the future of partisan gerrymandering, we saw a perfect example of how certain members of the SCOTUS have taken it upon themselves to not only interpret the Constitution but to add to and change it based on partisan positions.
Gorsuch made a point that “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution.” Making the case that he felt the other judges were being driven ideologically instead of by the nation’s founding documents.
He went further:
“And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, it’s pretty clear—if you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2.”
His meaning here being that the Constitution did not give the SCOTUS authority over redistricting, and that is should be a state matter.
Ginsburg shot back with one comment: “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?”
And, of course, Liberals are swooning over the statement. They are arguing that Ginsburg means the SCOTUS intervened in state’s rights to push “one person, one vote”, and they did. But this is a misleading point.
“One person, one vote” had to be done by the Supreme Court because it would have unfairly balanced one state against another. If a vote in one state was worth three times as much as another state, then the second state would be unfairly disadvantaged. But with redistricting, it is an issue that impacts Republicans and Democrats purely within that state. Therefore, it should be for them to sort out. If they can’t, then they are not “worth their salt” and the voters should kick them all out next election…This is why we have elections.