# Supreme Court to hear Arizona redistricting case

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 2, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023 "2015-03-02T16:47:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023/61 "2015-03-16T19:09:58Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> Congress reenacted the GFSZA with findings that gun violence affects interstate commerce. Not much power behind _Lopez_.

You are assuming that SCOTUS would uphold GFSZA Mark II, which is doubtful.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023/62 "2015-03-16T21:56:51Z")

</div>

> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> You are assuming that SCOTUS would uphold GFSZA Mark II, which is doubtful.

We are going on 20 years later and the new law still stands. It the current SCOTUS wants to overturn the law either plaintiffs have been lazy about bringing it to their attention or the don’t want to hear it. Bottom line is that it is still out there to capture the unwary or inattentive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023/63 "2015-03-16T22:35:37Z")

</div>

Frankly, I don’t want the inattentive wandering around schools with guns. But that’s beside the point.

It certainly does take a long time to get to SCOTUS, but I don’t think that says anything about how they’d rule. As far as I can tell, none of the challengers to the new-old law have even tried to get up there.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023/64 "2015-03-17T14:03:13Z")

</div>

> [@jtgain](#):
>
> **Bricker** , your continued support of _Wickard v. Filburn_ makes everything you said a nice history lesson but useless in practice. When asked by what authority the feds act under, they can simply say: Interstate Commerce Clause. Such a jurisprudence gives them, in effect, plenary powers.

Even if that is true, and I don’t agree it is… nothing I wrote is incorrect. The federal government has wide authority now because a lot of stuff moves in interstate commerce.

But that authority is, contrary to your discussion, not plenary. While the gun-free school zones law has been re-crafted, the Lopez test remains the law: federal legislation under the ICC must affect either the _channels_ of interstate commerce, the \*instrumentalities[i/] of interstate commerce, _persons or things_ in interstate commerce, or _activities_ that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona-redistricting-case/714023.md?page=3)