39 Comments

Congress responded to restrictive SCOTUS voting rights case law in the past & could now if there were the votes. That was President Biden's ultimate response on the White House website: an appeal for legislation. Most of the Dems were willing to break the filibuster on voting rights legislation too.

November elections are key.

Expand full comment

This, exactly.

Expand full comment

Unless Biden is a closet republican he seems to be sacrificing an awful lot of what Ted Kennedy was the Lead Mouthpiece for in the US Senate: but as far as I can tell Biden he isn't getting anything in return? Where's the unrefuted documentary evidence to the contrary. The whole thing is bizarre, for decades the Jumping Jack Asses relied on the USSCt. and now the Big Elephants are doing the same thing. That's the greatest weakness of SPM politics - it seems as tho the only unifying theory is that the SPM is "all in" for The New Federalism and anything else is a tension regarding yes, but it's not supposed to turn out that way - even tho it continues to do so.

Expand full comment

I was just reading about the political question doctrine related to the Fifth circuit and the buoy case, and now here comes Thomas.

Can we survive this SCOTUS? I wonder now if we'll ever be able to repair our justice system. And people complain about how they don't want to vote for Biden, for one single cause or another, as if another term of Trump won't permanently seal the fate of this country.

If there is anything humorous about all of this, and there really isn't, it's the conjecture today about Kagan's use of "upside down".

Expand full comment

paradoxical isn't it 😏

Expand full comment

Partisan gerrymandering is the whole game. We need to ban all kinds of gerrymandering. Shit. Democrats need to go all in and hard in the election in November.

Expand full comment

I would add, the states of Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina, contain a total of 9 Democratic U.S. House districts, and all nine could easily be eliminated (i.e. each state's delegation could be entirely Republican) if the state legislatures did not have to consider race. Looks like the court's next project.

Expand full comment

I wonder if there will be a time when people do not assume racial districts will elect a certain party

Expand full comment

Voting doesn't work, anyway. It's all a show to make us believe that we have a choice & a say. It only benefits the rich, wealthy elite (The 1%). They handpick the politicians to be on our voting ballots.

Both parties are corrupt & are owned by wealthy billionaire donors, lobbyists, corporate interests & globalists. We aren't voting our way out of corruption & tyranny.

Expand full comment

If it didn’t work, republicans would not be working this hard to make it impossible for democrats to win.

Expand full comment

It's all political theatre. All a show. The reality is that both Republicans & Democrats are buddies behind closed doors while pretending to be fighting against each other when they're on camera.

Expand full comment

That's exactly what the powerful want us to think, because then we give up.

Expand full comment

If voting REALLY worked, they wouldn't let us do it. It would be illegal. Why else do you think that they haven't done it?

Every two or four years, NOTHING has changed. All these crooked, corrupt politicians do is use lip service to tell us what we want to hear to get our votes & get elected, then they turn around & ignore us while enriching themselves & making our lives worse until they need our votes again.

I'm through with that.

Expand full comment

Ok. And if/when Republicans win, and all of our future elections are like Russia's 'elections', it will be because of this kind of attitude. What people don't understand is that just because things are bad doesn't mean they couldn't be much worse, and THAT'S why we vote. Not to get sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. People need to grow up. Or I guess find a country to live in where everybody thinks exactly the same as they do. Then you can get what you want, and when it doesn't work you can blame democracy, again.

Expand full comment

Like I said earlier, both parties are one & the same. I used to be a liberal & used think like you, thinking that "Democrats are good, Republicans are bad." I was taught to think that. Then I started doing research & began opening my eyes. I'm now an Anarchist.

The Democrats used to be the Dixiecrats, for one. They're the ones responsible for the Ku Klux Klan among other bad crap. You should look at history, including from civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. & Malcolm X. By the way, we're in a Constitutional Republic, not in a Democracy.

Expand full comment

That sentiment is understandable, but it fails to account for what it's basically the kind of cynical, jaded view that asks people to either "give up" or just revolt. And neither of those options are attractive when you're a deeply oppressed minority who literally can't exist under the current leadership.

In other words, Democrats and Republicans both suck, but at least Democrats aren't passing laws that make it illegal for trans people to exist in public. I can't support everything Democrats do/don't do, but I CAN support the individual issues important to staying alive.

Expand full comment

No doubt. The SPM created it that way - all leavls of government in the USA are 100% dependent on The Profit Class for all government spending money

Expand full comment

End game no democrats shall ever should be elected .

Expand full comment

As a conscientious voter for the past many many years, I did my research and looked at what future legislation may evolve from those I had (or would) vote for, including judges . With gerrymandered districts and the loss of a fair remedy through the courts and especially this corrupt SCOTUS, I am just about out of hope; especially with these horrendous "Republican super majorities" in many critical states.

Do we have any recourse before the election?

Expand full comment

This reminds me a lot of Abbott v. Perez, also an Alito opinion. I wonder how this squares with SFFA.

Expand full comment

If you don't submit an alternative map that allows the state to achieve its partisan goals - meaning, partisan gerrymandering is protected first, before you can consider the racial component. Even if perhaps the only way to achieve the partisan goal is racial discrimination?? Racial discrimination is (or has been) the only way to address partisan gerrymandering in the courts. If that's now taken away, because the state must be allowed to achieve its partisan goals, there's really no point to the litigation anymore. Which of course is the exact intent of this decision. Partisan gerrymandering is no longer just none of the courts' business; it's now explicitly enshrined as protected by the constitution. 🤬 They're pushing too far. Sooner or later (probably sooner if Republicans win this election) we're going to overthrow this whole crooked constitution and system of government, and good riddance.

Expand full comment

The length of the Chancellor’s foot. Down with law.

Expand full comment

Equity is our only hope - footnotes or not. And a proud member of The Selden Society. I was going to append, to boot, butt thought it would be in bad taste 😎

Expand full comment

The experience with courts of equity has not been uniformly well received, even on Trantor.

Expand full comment

But then again in Klopstakia !!

Expand full comment

There is no meaningful distinction between racial gerrymandering and political gerrymandering, given that 95% of politics is rich white males trying to oppress everyone else.

Expand full comment

In addition to my main comment - I read a little of the decision. 1st - a state, acted in good faith? The majority has decided that Race has to be separated from politics, which is biased because Race is the centerpiece of Democratic Party Social Policy so how can you separate race from politics? O, I see you, become a republican. I doubt I could wade thru the attempt to justify such blatantly political position which portends to be non-political? Or is so political that the subject matter may be discussed and determined and then the majority declines jurisdiction ? But apparently that's what the entire case amounts to. Did I miss something?

Expand full comment

Lord knows I should agree with Thomas on anything, but his non-concurrence on the idea that appellate judges should become triers of fact seems to me to be very important. The rest of his opinion is pure dreck, of course. His attack on Brown v Board as not being in conformance with "The High Court of Chancery" in 1789 is what I would call pre-originalist idiocy. What did the Court of Chancery DO but look at remedies like injunctions against certain behavior? And in 1789 it wasn't doing much about voter issues--it took the Reform Act of 1832 to start doing that.

Alito can't GET to his desired power to just reject lower court fact-finding in favor of his 'druthers without inventing a whole new rule--the assumption that legislatures always act in good faith. What world does he LIVE in? What other controversies will this presumption be applied to as unconstitutional state laws are challenged? If a state decides to segregate its public schools for some bull shit reason ("student safety?), will there be a presumption that it is acting in good faith? Will there be a rejection of a lower court's finding of facts that show their mealy-mouthed statute was indeed aimed a racial segregation, so that Thomas can rule that Brown is no longer good law?

This decision does way more than destroy any recourse for blatant racial gerrymander, bad though that is.

Expand full comment

Quit calling them “conservatives”—they are Libertarian fascists. Their efforts to “save/conserve on fiscal policies” are, in fact, designed to siphon off wealth into their own pockets. There is nothing financially “conservative” about exploiting people, privatizing or eliminating social safety nets, borrowing against SS and then stealing that money by eliminating the program; privatizing schools, prisons; creating corporate conglomerates that eliminate competition and raise prices/money gouging whenever a crisis arises. They aren’t beneficent fiscal agents—they are Fascist thieves.

Expand full comment

This is what worries me: Say the Dems do gain control of Congress and pass a form of HR1 and a new voting rights act next term and Biden signs it. Whats to stop the states from suing again in court. What will happen? Will congress have the stones to limit judicial review by tell SCOTUS to literally FO?!?! Big times call for big action and Congress finally needs to limit review and jurisdiction in these cases and apply the 14th and 15th amendment. They can literally do this if they want...why the dems don't want to is beyond me.

Expand full comment