https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-lets-alabama-use-electoral-map-faulted-racial-bias-2022-02-07/
The US Supreme Court reversed a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its congressional map which violated the Voting Rights Act. The five justices in the majority do not issue an explanation, except to say "This Courts stay order is not a decision on merits."
Just like the vaccine mandate ruling, this one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. As far as I can tell, the conservative justices don't make any legal justification for their decision to overturn the District Court decision, instead calling it a "stay". Since the lower court DID make a legal decision, how does that make sense? If a District Court makes a legal ruling based on clear precedent, SCOTUS can overturn it without explaining why?
A couple decisions in a row now seem to be simply ignoring all law and precedent. It seems lawless.
@wildgrass
The original (now overturned) ruling to redraw the map was made unanimously by a three-judge panel, including two conservatives nominated by Trump.
Like, if a convicted murderer on death row appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court took his case and made a ruling of "stay" which allowed him to walk out of prison but didn't base their decision on any evidence or legal precedent, wouldn't that be weird?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@wildgrass said5-4 OR 6 -3?
@wildgrass
The original (now overturned) ruling to redraw the map was made unanimously by a three-judge panel, including two conservatives nominated by Trump.
Like, if a convicted murderer on death row appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court took his case and made a ruling of "stay" which allowed him to walk out of prison but didn't base their decision on any evidence or legal precedent, wouldn't that be weird?
@jimm619 saidThey'll get another at bat? Maybe... with a little pine tar on the ball and Jose Altuve banging on trash cans from the bullpen.
I just saw..............This isn't the end, they'll get another at bat.
This will, however, affect the 2022 election........
1) The conservative-leaning District Court wrote over 200 pages on this ruling that required Alabama to form 2 majority-Black districts based on decades of interpretation of the Voting Rights act.
2) SCOTUS overturns that ruling (calling it a "stay" ) with no legal reasoning.
3) The liberal dissent notes that the state of Alabama is asking the court to overlook decades of legal precedent regarding the Voting Rights Act. Conservatives say "ok we will overlook."
4) The Chief Justice commended the lower court for having “properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.”
I don't get it. Shouldn't the court be required to provide legal justification before overturning legally-interpreted district court opinion and decades of legal precedent?
The New York Times pointed out that outlandish gerrymandering (their view) is being done by Democrats in states like New York so to be accurate, it isn't just a tool used by Republicans.
I'm not sure how to fix it but one certainly could argue that one of seven Congressional districts being majority black is Ok in a state that has 27% black people. Just on its face, do you think we think the goal of districting should be solely to make minority groups in the majority in different districts?
@quackquack saidTrue. Libs do it too. This was not pointed out by SCOTUS.
The New York Times pointed out that outlandish gerrymandering (their view) is being done by Democrats in states like New York so to be accurate, it isn't just a tool used by Republicans.
I'm not sure how to fix it but one certainly could argue that one of seven Congressional districts being majority black is Ok in a state that has 27% black people. Just on its face, do ...[text shortened]... goal of districting should be solely to make minority groups in the majority in different districts?
True. Even though SCOTUS could not find any legal fault in a lengthy court decision requiring two districts to comply with the Voting rights act, one certainly could argue that one of 7 districts being majority black is ok. SCOTUS made no attempt to make this argument.
As far as I can tell, their past two decisions (this one and the vaccine mandate one) have no foundation in law.
@quackquack saidTrue. But the problem is that the current SCOTUS has been shaped by blatant partisan hackery. SCOTUS is ruling in favor of Republican gerrymandering, per their conservative majority. Regardless of what Reps or Dems are doing, the SCOTUS should be impartial and are clearly not.
The New York Times pointed out that outlandish gerrymandering (their view) is being done by Democrats in states like New York so to be accurate, it isn't just a tool used by Republicans.
To the credit of some red states like North Carolina, they struck down unconstitutional gerrymandering at a time when doing so could help Democrats win the election. Their state Supreme Court cared more about principles than winning elections.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/593123-courts-give-democrats-unexpected-boost-on-redistricting
Kudos to those red states. It's shameful that New York Dems couldn't have the same integrity.
@vivify saidI believe the court which will hear this case in the future hopes to weaken the role that race plays in drawing districts. There are valid nondiscriminatory reason to feel all decisions should be made without focusing on race.
True. But the problem is that the current SCOTUS has been shaped by blatant partisan hackery. SCOTUS is ruling in favor of Republican gerrymandering, per their conservative majority. Regardless of what Reps or Dems are doing, the SCOTUS should be impartial and are clearly not.
To the credit of some red states like North Carolina, they struck down unconstitutional gerryma ...[text shortened]... ng
Kudos to those red states. It's shameful that New York Dems couldn't have the same integrity.
@quackquack saidI don't think judicial decisions should be based on feelings. Section 2 of the voting rights act addresses the idea that redistricting plans cannot be based on race explicitly. SCOTUS would be rewriting laws, not interpreting them.
I believe the court which will hear this case in the future hopes to weaken the role that race plays in drawing districts. There are valid nondiscriminatory reason to feel all decisions should be made without focusing on race.
@wildgrass saidThis court would probably find the Freedmen's Bureau unconstitutional so don't get your hopes up.
I don't think judicial decisions should be based on feelings. Section 2 of the voting rights act addresses the idea that redistricting plans cannot be based on race explicitly. SCOTUS would be rewriting laws, not interpreting them.
@quackquack saidThe truth of the matter is that progressives have fought against gerrymandering while right wingers have used it to their advantage in numerous States and a conservative court declared themselves powerless to do anything about it even while conceding it was a violation of rights.
The New York Times pointed out that outlandish gerrymandering (their view) is being done by Democrats in states like New York so to be accurate, it isn't just a tool used by Republicans.
I'm not sure how to fix it but one certainly could argue that one of seven Congressional districts being majority black is Ok in a state that has 27% black people. Just on its face, do ...[text shortened]... goal of districting should be solely to make minority groups in the majority in different districts?
It's asking a lot of Democrats in blue States to draw fair, impartial maps while Republicans in red States are (again) busily doing everything they can to maintain and expand minority rule.
An analogy:
Blue guy and Red guy are in a boxing match. Red Guy continuously hits Blue Guy low and by doing so gains an advantage. When Blue Guy complains to the referee (who happens to be Red Guy's brother in law), the ref declares what Red Guy is doing is certainly a foul but the ref's interpretation is that he can't do anything about it.
Should Blue Guy just accept this and keep getting hit low to Red Guy's advantage or should he retaliate and hit low to even things up?