Is SCOTUS getting cold feet about stamping out gerrymandering?

[Torie]

The Economist thinks so based on oral arguments in the Maryland case. It seems that SCOTUS is getting cold feet applying applying magic (and flawed) mathematical formulas like the efficiency gap metric, and so is still left with the conundrum as to just what to do about it all, without every single map ending up in court because the metrics are so murky. Just why they have not thought more about listing the factors: chops (including the design of the chops), erosity and so forth, and merely state that the burden of proof is on the map drawer where those metrics are not followed to prove that it was not done for partisan reasons, but rather were based on appropriate and non partisan redistricting principles, escapes me.

Breyer seems to want to delay it all, so the court can ponder it some more next term (will Justice Kennedy still be there The Economist muses). Muon2 should send SCOTUS an amicus brief, with the essentials of his metrics (chops, road cuts, respect for keeping metro areas in tact), leaving out the more esoteric stuff, but I digress.

[Oryxslayer]

We have heard about this before, there is a majority on the court to throw out the Wisconsin map and put some controls on political gerrymandering. Everyone can see the map is bad, and is justifiably against various laws/rulings/constitution. The problem is that the courts don't want to put in place any true mathematical or geographic formulas since there will always be exceptions. If a mathematical standard is put in place, then the court would become bombarded with requests citing minor issues that violate said standard. It's very likely that both maps get thrown out, but the results will make political gerrymandering like racial gerrymandering, with different standards and judgements in each instance.

[Orser67]

People have assumed that the court will want to have a bright line standard, but I could see a plurality decision in which the map(s) are struck down but no clear standard is set.

[KingSweden]

People have assumed that the court will want to have a bright line standard, but I could see a plurality decision in which the map(s) are struck down but no clear standard is set.

It would be a very lawyerly thing to do.

[cinyc]

I'm well in the minority here, but I hope SCOTUS is getting cold feet and leaves redistricting to the state legislatures absent direction from Congress, as the Constitution states. But I doubt that will happen. Justice Kennedy seems hell bent on imposing some stupid vague standards that will ultimately lead to more litigation and inconsistent jurisprudence, like in the VRA area.

[MarkD]

I'm well in the minority here, but I hope SCOTUS is getting cold feet and leaves redistricting to the state legislatures absent direction from Congress, as the Constitution states. But I doubt that will happen. Justice Kennedy seems hell bent on imposing some stupid vague standards that will ultimately lead to more litigation and inconsistent jurisprudence, like in the VRA area.

I am with you in the minority. And Justice Kennedy has already shown "cold feet" before on the gerrymandering issue (in Vieth v. Jubelirer).