Gerrymandering

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just to point out, it's clearly an individual right (as in individuals are the ones handling arms) but the purpose of the right is toward upholding the (collective) militias. Militias were a more omnipresent and often informal phenomenon in the Americas, for obvious reasons (Indians and Negroes).

Yes, an individual right that can reasonably be restricted by properly enacted legislation.

This is a cop-out. The standards judges have applied are satisfactory. Roberts doesn't explain what's wrong with using the state's own standards in generating and assessing maps. The judges aren't inventing something from thin air.

I also note that refusing to engage with these standards with the effect of preserving (as the majority admits, unusual and extreme) partisan gerrymander is much more political than acting to mitigate a partisan gerrymander.

First, I contest that non-intervention is partisan. The Court explicitly notes that the districting is partisan, it claims no competency to judge the case - not that partisanship is justified.

Secondly, It seems to me that Roberts et al. are looking for a generally applicable standard. According to the majority judgement the one time the Court decided the gerrymander was justiciable it couldn't decide how to adjudicate the case.

Who is "we"?

Excuse me - "We" in this instance is the British electorate which largely accepts the current electoral map. those who agitate for reform (like Beskar) want a system of proportional representation (which would also address your districting problem).

The practices of other governments are irrelevant to our existing arrangement, as conservative justices tend to emphasize elsewhere in their jurisprudence. The UK has a national health service. That suggests nothing about whether the US will or should establish a national health service, or vice versa that the UK will or should abolish its own.

This is essentially saying, "other politicians can be expected to act respectably but our can't." That has to be the most extra-ordinary example of American exceptionalism.

No, they don't agree. Previous decisions explicitly did not hold that federal courts lack authority to adjudicate complaints about partisan gerrymandering. The previous jurisprudence amounted to 'Reply hazy, try again.'

Roberts makes it clear the problem here is not lack of authority per se but lack of a generally applicable standard.

If Congress were to establish a cleaer standard it would be easier for the court to apply.

How? What in the Constitution are you referring to? What did Roberts refer to? Judges apply tests all the time. And as I said, if state courts are competent to adjudicate the issue with reference to the federal Constitution, so are federal courts. If those courts can apply standards, and Roberts admits there are legitimate constitutional harms arising from the practice of partisan gerrymandering, then exclaiming that judicial review is too difficult and political when it is not difficult, not reliant on individual politics, and inaction has a demonstrable political bias, is clearly a fig leaf to bolster the political power of his party - something that Roberts has done repeatedly in his time on the bench, so no benefit of the doubt warranted.

What in Article III is contradicting here?

Honestly, I'm not going to try to get into this bit - I don't have time to read all the relevant literature. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the argument - the dissenting judgement seems the more partisan to me and without years of American Law School I can't say more than that.