Talk:Baker v. Carr

message: Justiciability is not a term understood by the English-speaking public in general.  It appears that most other countries do not even use the term the way the US Supreme Court does.  It may be helpful to make a short definition of what is meant by justiciabitip on mi dick within this article to assist readers with this term of art. Matthew K 06:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The American Congress, Julian E. Zelizer, Editor, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, “Chapter 31. The Warren Court and the Political Process,” L. A. Powe, Jr., page 550:
“  .  .  involving Tennessee (one of the states that had not touched its legislative districts since 1901) .  . ”
“  .  .  Everyone understood that Baker v. Carr meant that overrepresented rural districts would be forced to cede some political power to more populous areas.  .  ”
&&&&&
Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
Held:
“  .  .  .  We hold that the dismissal was error, and remand the cause to the District Court for trial and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  .  .  ”
:I think some of our article is overly technical.  Or, overly technical to the exclusion of the straightforward, for I think we do want to include both.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee had not reapportioned since 1901, rural districts over-represented, urban districts under-represented

message: The Luther v Borden article correctly states that it is the law to this day - which is to say the Guarantee Clause is non-justiciable.  Colegrove v Green simply relied on Luther, because there the appellant argued the districting violated the Guarantee Clause.  The Colegrove article says it was overruled by Baker v Carr.  As a practical matter, this might be true, but technically the articles ought to distinguish between justiciability under Equal Protection, and justiciability under the Guarantee Clause. 99.181.97.228 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate discussion/holding 

message: I recall reading that the Burger Court watered down Baker vs. Carr by ruling that legislative districts could be within 20%.  A legislative district could be 20% over average population, or 20% under, and that would be deemed acceptable.  FriendlyRiverOtter 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by the Burger Court in the early 1970s? 

message: So, a distinction between Congressional districts (that is, the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C.) and state legislative districts?  And maybe that's where the case law currently stands.  So, please, feel free, you yes you, jump in and help!  User:FriendlyRiverOtter|FriendlyRiverOtter]] (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Application of BAKER by lower courts

message: I would like to see a longer, fuller, richer article.  And as long as we keep our article divided into sections, it will remain eminently readable.  For example, we could have a two-paragraph section entitled "Justice Charles Evans Whittaker and his breakdown," in which we discuss his struggles, his reclusal, and his health problems.  And in general I want to see us put the Baker case in a far richer social and political context.  And for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, that context absolutely has to include the civil rights movement, and the opposition to such.  If state legislators did anything to make voting more rational, more logical, more streamlined, they could be accused of helping African-Americans.  I think the clunky, cluttered, illogical system was accepted in large part because it was felt that it kept black citizens in their place (it would absolutely astonish me if something like this was not going on).
===Justice Frankfurter presented as cardboard figure?===
The quote "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket" is a great quote.  But the next part in our article where it's attributed to him saying that the remedy has to be achieved through the political process makes him look like a cardboard figure, like we're just using him to illustrate an intellectual position that makes for a well-ordered article.  For the obvious response is, that if some citizens are over-represented, they're going to like the current system just fine and have no incentive to change things.  Justice Frankfurter is a smart guy.  He has to be aware of this.  And he probably has an answer, too.  It just might not be a "convenient" answer for the article.  Well, I think we should include the answer as it is, in all its messiness.   FriendlyRiverOtter 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Baker (and co-plaintiffs) filed directly in federal court

message: The quote "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket" is a great quote.  But the next part in our article where it's attributed to him saying that the remedy has to be achieved through the political process makes him look like a cardboard figure, like we're just using him to illustrate an intellectual position that makes for a well-ordered article.  For the obvious response is, that if some citizens are over-represented, they're going to like the current system just fine and have no incentive to change things.  Justice Frankfurter is a smart guy.  He has to be aware of this.  And he probably has an answer, too.  It just might not be a "convenient" answer for the article.  Well, I think we should include the answer as it is, in all its messiness.   FriendlyRiverOtter 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justice Frankfurter presented as cardboard figure?

message: And as an example of what was going on in the Civil Rights Movement, the Nashville sit-ins took place from February to May, 1960.   FriendlyRiverOtter 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nashville Sit-ins around the same time.  Worth including?

message: Our article attributes Baker vs. Carr as paving the way for the above.  Maybe.  Maybe as one cause.  It hardly seems like there was enough time to really get rolling.  And as far as the Voting Rights Act, that was Selma most of all.  Of all of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's achievements, Selma was arguably the greatest, and the achievement of many, many other citizens as well.   FriendlyRiverOtter 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Primary and Secondary Education Act of 1966 

message: Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Voting Rights Act of 1970
-------
The 24th Amendment--outlawing poll taxes in federal elections--was proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate on August 27, 1962, and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures on January 23, 1964.   
----------
"This violence was accompanied by the federal government’s abandonment of Reconstruction. In 1877, Southern Democrats struck a deal with GOP presidential candidate Rutherford B. Hayes to help Hayes win the contested election of 1876. In exchange, the military force that had enforced the radical political gains in the South was withdrawn. For supporting Hayes, the Southern Democrats were able to ensure white political supremacy for decades to come. The notorious laws of the Jim Crow era followed." 
Baker was at first the one to blame for everything, in which he should have lost this case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.218.194.120 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some social, political, and cultural context

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baker v. Carr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427172613/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/baker-carr.html to http://www.lawnix.com/cases/baker-carr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn’t this ruling overruled in part by the Rucho v Common Cause ruling stating that Partisan Gerrymandering in the redistricting process is a nonjusticiable question beyond the scope of the federal judiciary? MetaPlanet (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn’t this overruled?