A Missing Race

The argument is that the Constitution clearly says the State Legislature must make the decision to redistrict.

You can read that literally (since in virtually every state the Governor can veto the legislature, which isn't in the Constitution and so it's possible that every state that desperately wants that way of doing it will be confounded),

You can read it as saying, the State Legislatures have made that decision by delegating to an independent commission the power authorized by the legislature (as in Arizona) or set up by referendum in some states.

My best guess is, both the independent commissions and the power of Governors to veto will both get struck down (the power of Governors to veto wasn't in question before the SCOTUS in that 2015 case). So, there appear to be 3 real judges with a philosophy of strict construction and about to be three fake judges (Thomas, Alito and Comey) who will just interpret the Constitution anyway they want to serve the agenda of their parties), and three real judges who follow what has been the main judicial philosophy that has dominated the country since 1804: That if events occur not anticipated by the Founders, but which are consistent with the text of the Constitution, the SCOTUS can "update" the Constitution rather than waiting for an amendment (the only exceptions to the domination of this judicial philosophy were during the period of about 1877-1897, when the SCOTUS struck down some laws passed while Grant was President (the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act), upheld Jim Crow laws, found labor unions to be unconstitutional and ruled that belonging to a certain political party could be a crime) and also during the early years of the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

Textualism for some is an excuse for rewriting the Constitution and for others to enforce it per their philosophy.

Now, some people might say that Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are also fake judges, but I respectively disagree. The Heritage Foundation has labeled all 3 traitors and wants them impeached. Roberts, for upholding significant portions of the ACA (5-4 decision), for being the 5th vote in a number of cases requiring the Trump administration to execute laws passed by Congress and signed by prior Presidents, for writing the 5-4 decision barring the addition of a citizenship question on the census, and for voting to deny cert to appeals of federal court decisions upholding regulations of guns in several states... and upholding Roe v Wade as precedent. Gorsuch is on the hit list for joining that 7-2 decision to deny cert on the gun laws, for interpreting Roe v Wade in a way that clearly indicates he won't strike it down entirely (maybe cut it back a lot or maybe not a lot in the second trimester, depending on the facts), for upholding the rights of the Cherokee Nation against the State of Oklahoma disallowing fracking and other matters on lands granted to the Cherokee by treaty, and for a 4th decision I can't remember (oh, the right of Cyrus Vance to get Trump's tax returns). Kavanaugh was of course part of that 7-2 attack on the 2nd Amendment, but even worse as the SCOTUS member holding court over the 9th Circuit, upholding California's law restricting indoor gatherings to 50 or less people despite it's clear violation of the freedom of religion and freedom of assembly asserted by a network of church organizations. I'll bet those churches were stunned: You can submit to the Justice in charge of that circuit, but if you lose, you can't appeal to the full SCOTUS. Kavanaugh's reasoning was totally sound: Any Constitutional Amendment can be regulated by the state governments or the federal government if, facing the strict scrutiny test, it serves a compelling state interest and is drawn as narrowly as possible to serve that compelling state interest. Kavanaugh, at least, knows that Covid-19 is real, even if Trump, the Heritage Foundation and a lot of other people won't accept that. Plus, Kavanaugh also ruled that Vance could get those tax returns...

Trump has expressed his disappointment at the traitors Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but really wants Roberts roasted over a slow fire.

Comey will undoubtedly change the SCOTUS in dramatic ways, perhaps writing the 5-4 decision declaring that the ACA is now unconstitutional just 2 years after the SCOTUS ruled otherwise, but then we don't know how Gorsuch who, like Roberts, squirms when asked to overturn very recent Supreme Court precedent (stare decisis: The matter's been decided). That's what Roberts and Gorsuch said about Roe v Wade (37 years old) in the case of the Texas laws regarding onerous and completely unreasonable (according to thousands of doctors signing an amicus brief; Texas couldn't find a single doctor to back up its claim) requirements on abortion clinics forcing 18 of the 19 clinics in the state to close: Stare decisis. But Gorsuch interpreted the very confusing decision written by Harry Blackman that in the second trimester the states can put in place restrictions on abortion that can be said to reasonably protect the health of the mother by a rather broad interpretation of the word "reasonable," since he felt the Texas regulations were reasonable... 

Kagan just issued a decision allowing Bullock to implement more mail-in voting in Montana.

This might or might not help Bullock's run for the Senate.

The reason why the SCOTUS was originally 7 was because there were 7 circuits. When the circuits became 9, the number of Justices eventually became 9. Now, there are 13 circuits. Think of this: Why didn't the Republicans increase the Court to 13 in 2017-18?

And it's not "packing the court." Having to supervise circuits is extremely burdensome on top of hearing cases and being 1 of 9 is easier than bearing the burden alone.

I wasn't accusing you, Mhbruin, of calling it "packing the court," I'm responding to the way the media and many others on both sides always refer to it.

As you said, it's not only common sense, but there's clear precedent for doing it. And Congress has the power to do it by majority vote if the President approves. How awful, horrible and unfair can it be?

I am pretty sure the Constitution does not say anything about how legislative districts are to be drawn. It never mentions legislative districts. It talks about how many seats each state gets.

Born2BBruin, mh:

Read Wesberry v Sanders, 376 US 1 (1964), in which Justice Hugo Black explains that the states have the power and responsibility under Article 1, Section 2, to draw up Congressional districts (which are now redistricted every 10 years, after each census). They are supposed to do it based on the basis of roughly equal population, on the one person, one vote principle.

I also refer everyone to Section 4: Congress can pass a law regulating state election laws (early voting days, mail-in voting, deadlines for voting, etc.) by majority vote ("except as to the Places for chusing Senators"). So, if Biden wins and the Democrats hold both houses, they can pass a uniform law regulating state elections for Congress (Congress designates Election Day for the President already), except that the states can presumably say that Senators can only be "chosen in a particular place" in the state (a far corner of Idaho inaccessible to anyone not in a militia group? Or on some other basis that a future Supreme Court will ultimately decide?).

The Constitution as written isn't the Constitution and never has been. You also have to read the many thousands of cases interpreting that sparse and often opaque document.

I've also read a lot of nonsense about a chaotic election created by Republican state legislatures choosing their own slate of electors regardless of who wins the most votes for President in those states. State legislators appoint the number of electors, not their party affiliation or even who they are, and every state has a law requiring that the electors sent to the President of the Senate be the slate of electors supporting the Presidential candidate who wins the most votes in that state. So, unless a state legislature amends that law really fast, it still leaves open the question: Who are the electors? The state legislature can only choose the number of electors, not their identities...