A majority of the justices didn't appear willing to hold that all "race-based redistricting" is unconstitutional, as Louisiana wanted. But how they'll get there was unclear.
Alito is all wet. The fact that the court held in Rucho held (wrongly) that partisan gerrymandering is a political question, is not the same that partisan gerrymandering is legitimate, much less that partisanship is a compelling state interest that would justify discrimination against Black voters.
That Alito bit and Nelson’s response really touched something this makes me think about: those that want partisan gerrymandering to stay allowable kind of NEEDING some degree of allowable discrimination (neutral usage) on paper, lest they accidentally start a conversation on what can determine a district, period?
The Roberts Court plan to further eviscerate the VRA … totally predictable. I wonder if it deems - and will be willing to render a decision - that equality among the black and white races has finally been achieved. “NOT,” quoth Garth.
The simple solution is one man one vote… do away with Electoral College and districts need to be based on squares drawn by bi Partisan based on states population
Thank you for the thorough and probing legal analysis, Chris. Oddly missing from it all, until a hint in the final paragraph, is that sitting in the room with all these fine legal arguments is a very overweight elephant: It has been calculated that riding on this decision is a likely swing of *19 seats* in the US House, effectively handing GOP/MAGA durable majority control even in the face of a blue-wave national rejection of Trump and Trumpism. In other words, the fate of the republic hangs in the balance.
The absurdity of Rucho -- that federal courts can do no more than stand back and watch as state legislatures draw maps to keep the vast majority of their *own* seats safe -- would here be compounded by a "race-blind" imperative that would serve to perpetuate not just racial inequalities but political hegemony.
I'm glad to hear your observation that SCOTUS may have to stop short of implementing the uber-cynical vision of Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. But one thing that led me to abandon my own promising career as an attorney was my perception that law and justice were apt to be divergent and that the quest for power and (unfair) political advantage was so often cloaked in "legal theory" and fine points of law. I was disgusted by that in the 1980s and have grown only more disgusted since.
Reverse racism is a perverse concept and wholly unserious.
If it were serious THOMAS wouldn't have concurred in overturning Affirmative Action that he stated clearly got him where he is today.
Does he feel unqualified to do his job?
Does he believe Affirmative Action took him, as unqualified on his merits, over a white person, with better merits? Unserious.
Perhaps, Thomas should also feel the responsibility to take a second look at the word RECUSAL, and its current definition, as he finds the word useless in situations that clearly violate his duty to oversee anything involving Trump, unless and until his wife, Ginny, is cleared, of any involvement in any TRUMP coup attempt, or per the CO Supreme Court's decision "TRUMP incited an insurrection", and explain her text messages between fake electors and Meadows, both before and during, the J6 insurrection, and her attendance at TRUMP Stop The Steal Rallies, and much more, and look at his own grossly abused relationship with the current POTUS.
The abject partisanship is not going over well with outspoken Federal judges and lower court judges, appointed by both parties, and it is highly unprecedented for judges to speak out.
Let THEM have their coup, of sorts, as the SCOTUS' perch to sit untouched, while Gorsuch says "you can't defy", is also unserious.
I'd simply say "Get off my cloud and why the hell wouldn't I defy something sans any explanation?"
Is anyone planning to take issue with the POTUS demanding, a clearly unofficial act, of demanding, QUID PRO QUO's, that only go in one direction on two issues, sending troops, and illegal gerrymandering redistricting? I understand mid-census is not illegal but the POTUS' DEMAND should absolutely see a lawsuit.
TX has done their gerrymandering for their five seats and it's being challenged.
They should not now be able to redo, plus have the 5 that Trump demanded, correct?
One or the other needs addressing. Who doesn't think of this shit?
CA would have to drop the ballot measure, and any state would, that has anything in process.
They will wait until the end of this term to announce their ruling and it will be another immunity ruling all over.
If ya can't take the heat get outta the kitchen white folks.
Time to bring the narrative to the SCOTUS and can someone point me in the direction of something other than a dusty DOJ procedures and norms policy book, that Trump has torched by now, to show a potential legal team somewhere globally even, to sue a sitting POTUS? TikTok.
“Race-based redistricting is contrary to our Constitution.” Know what wasn’t contrary? Slavery. Reducing African Americans to 3/5 humanity. Will Plessy be brought back too? So much effort to gentrify racism.
One has to wonder if the Roberts Court - along with the recent Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem - is saying racism is okay (but not against whites, trumpets Trump).
Alito is all wet. The fact that the court held in Rucho held (wrongly) that partisan gerrymandering is a political question, is not the same that partisan gerrymandering is legitimate, much less that partisanship is a compelling state interest that would justify discrimination against Black voters.
If race-based redistricting isn’t allowed, why isn’t race based districting equally inappropriate?
Maybe cos *Shelby County*?
That Alito bit and Nelson’s response really touched something this makes me think about: those that want partisan gerrymandering to stay allowable kind of NEEDING some degree of allowable discrimination (neutral usage) on paper, lest they accidentally start a conversation on what can determine a district, period?
The Roberts Court plan to further eviscerate the VRA … totally predictable. I wonder if it deems - and will be willing to render a decision - that equality among the black and white races has finally been achieved. “NOT,” quoth Garth.
Can see the headline now:
“Trump Claims Racial Equality is Here!”
Kool-Aid cocktails for everyone! Bring on the (dancing) girls!
Historically, the Supreme Court has not been a friend of Black voters. Nothing has changed.
The simple solution is one man one vote… do away with Electoral College and districts need to be based on squares drawn by bi Partisan based on states population
... this is literally about districting for state and federal legislatures, so what are you even talking about
Thank you for the thorough and probing legal analysis, Chris. Oddly missing from it all, until a hint in the final paragraph, is that sitting in the room with all these fine legal arguments is a very overweight elephant: It has been calculated that riding on this decision is a likely swing of *19 seats* in the US House, effectively handing GOP/MAGA durable majority control even in the face of a blue-wave national rejection of Trump and Trumpism. In other words, the fate of the republic hangs in the balance.
The absurdity of Rucho -- that federal courts can do no more than stand back and watch as state legislatures draw maps to keep the vast majority of their *own* seats safe -- would here be compounded by a "race-blind" imperative that would serve to perpetuate not just racial inequalities but political hegemony.
I'm glad to hear your observation that SCOTUS may have to stop short of implementing the uber-cynical vision of Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. But one thing that led me to abandon my own promising career as an attorney was my perception that law and justice were apt to be divergent and that the quest for power and (unfair) political advantage was so often cloaked in "legal theory" and fine points of law. I was disgusted by that in the 1980s and have grown only more disgusted since.
Forty years? Humphrey's Executor is over twice that old & it seems to be on the chopping block.
Reverse racism is a perverse concept and wholly unserious.
If it were serious THOMAS wouldn't have concurred in overturning Affirmative Action that he stated clearly got him where he is today.
Does he feel unqualified to do his job?
Does he believe Affirmative Action took him, as unqualified on his merits, over a white person, with better merits? Unserious.
Perhaps, Thomas should also feel the responsibility to take a second look at the word RECUSAL, and its current definition, as he finds the word useless in situations that clearly violate his duty to oversee anything involving Trump, unless and until his wife, Ginny, is cleared, of any involvement in any TRUMP coup attempt, or per the CO Supreme Court's decision "TRUMP incited an insurrection", and explain her text messages between fake electors and Meadows, both before and during, the J6 insurrection, and her attendance at TRUMP Stop The Steal Rallies, and much more, and look at his own grossly abused relationship with the current POTUS.
The abject partisanship is not going over well with outspoken Federal judges and lower court judges, appointed by both parties, and it is highly unprecedented for judges to speak out.
Let THEM have their coup, of sorts, as the SCOTUS' perch to sit untouched, while Gorsuch says "you can't defy", is also unserious.
I'd simply say "Get off my cloud and why the hell wouldn't I defy something sans any explanation?"
Is anyone planning to take issue with the POTUS demanding, a clearly unofficial act, of demanding, QUID PRO QUO's, that only go in one direction on two issues, sending troops, and illegal gerrymandering redistricting? I understand mid-census is not illegal but the POTUS' DEMAND should absolutely see a lawsuit.
TX has done their gerrymandering for their five seats and it's being challenged.
They should not now be able to redo, plus have the 5 that Trump demanded, correct?
One or the other needs addressing. Who doesn't think of this shit?
CA would have to drop the ballot measure, and any state would, that has anything in process.
They will wait until the end of this term to announce their ruling and it will be another immunity ruling all over.
If ya can't take the heat get outta the kitchen white folks.
Time to bring the narrative to the SCOTUS and can someone point me in the direction of something other than a dusty DOJ procedures and norms policy book, that Trump has torched by now, to show a potential legal team somewhere globally even, to sue a sitting POTUS? TikTok.
“Race-based redistricting is contrary to our Constitution.” Know what wasn’t contrary? Slavery. Reducing African Americans to 3/5 humanity. Will Plessy be brought back too? So much effort to gentrify racism.
One has to wonder if the Roberts Court - along with the recent Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem - is saying racism is okay (but not against whites, trumpets Trump).