Legal scholars, help: A lawless Supreme Court...

@no1marauder said
As "ridiculous" as you might think it is, the Voting Rights Act plainly forbids the drawing of legislative lines that dilute minority representation in States, like Alabama, with a long history of discrimination against blacks.

And thus the valid reason for believing the Voting Rights Act is ridiculous.

@quackquack said
And thus the valid reason for believing the Voting Rights Act is ridiculous.

Hardly.

Just another example, among many, of white right wingers being unwilling to do anything to address to effects of systemic racism and invidious discrimination in the US.

The VRA passed the House by 328-74 and the Senate by 79-18 in 1965. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

@no1marauder said
Hardly.

Just another example, among many, of white right wingers being unwilling to do anything to address to effects of systemic racism and invidious discrimination in the US.

The VRA passed the House by 328-74 and the Senate by 79-18 in 1965. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

The left needs to stop looking at everything only through the lens of race. There are seven districts in Alabama. Blacks make up 27% of the population. If you randomly formed districts they wouldn't be in the majority in more than one district. So to believe they are somehow being denied something they are entitled to is just plain b.s.
Furthermore, if you really are the victim of racism you can bring a cause of action. If you don't or can't it is time to stop crying. The majority has rights too. And districts that are drawn with the intention of systematically diluting their vote should be struck down as well.

@quackquack said
Furthermore, if you really are the victim of racism you can bring a cause of action. If you don't or can't it is time to stop crying. The majority has rights too.

The majority has a long history of taking rights away from the minority. This an indisputable fact. Laws like the Voting Rights Act are merely correcting the effect of those wrongs, which still continue to this day.

Your post falsely assumes systemic racism is over. It is not. Even if you could wave a magic wand and end racism immediately, the effects of hundreds of years of racist oppression still leave minorities disadvantaged; and that must be rectified. The Voting Acts Right is one way to do so.

Hopefully, a day will come when such laws are not needed. We're nowhere near there.

@vivify said
The majority has a long history of taking rights away from the minority. This an indisputable fact. Laws like the Voting Rights Act are merely correcting the effect of those wrongs, which still continue to this day.

Your post falsely assumes systemic racism is over. It is not. Even if you could wave a magic wand and end racism immediately, the effects of hundreds of y ...[text shortened]... ay to do so.

Hopefully, a day will come when such laws are not needed. We're nowhere near there.

Districting based on race flat out isn't OK-- it's not Ok to deliberately decrease a group's influence and it's not OK to deliberately increase a group's influence. The law needs to treat people equally and there are are an infinite number of groups (racial/ religious/ National origin/ sexual orientation/ specific political issues) who similarly feel that the majority has ignored their concerns and should create districts for them. The Supreme Court would be wise to declare all such gerrymandering improper rather than deciding whether Latinos, Jews, bisexuals or environmentals need a district to be drawn where they are the majority and their concerns can be taken seriously before African Americans get a second district. The truth is everyone should get a vote. No one is entitled to be majority and drawing lines to make a group(s) the majority should be prohibited.

@quackquack said
it's not Ok to deliberately decrease a group's influence and it's not OK to deliberately increase a group's influence.

That's exactly what's happening here. Black influence is being reduced by gerrymandering, while white influence is being increased.

This is why this particular case of gerrymandering violates the Voting Rights Act.

@vivify said
That's exactly what's happening here. Black influence is being reduced by gerrymandering, while white influence is being increased.

This is why this particular case of gerrymandering violates the Voting Rights Act.

A group that has 27% of the states population is complaining that they only have the majority in one of seven districts. The sense of entitlement is ridiculous even in today's world.

@quackquack said
A group that has 27% of the states population is complaining that they only have the majority in one of seven districts. The sense of entitlement is ridiculous even in today's world.

The issue is not "entitlement". The issue is that districts were deliberately drawn in a way that deprives black voters of a majority.

By falsely stating the lawsuit is mere "complaining", you're creating a false narrative of the actual issue.

The problem is deliberately districting that takes power away from the minority and gives in more the the majority.

@vivify said
The issue is not "entitlement". The issue is that districts were deliberately drawn in a way that deprives black voters of a majority.

By falsely stating the lawsuit is mere "complaining", you're creating a false narrative of the actual issue.

The problem is deliberately districting that takes power away from the minority and gives in more the the majority.

No, when drawing districts there are many factors to consider. Race (at most) is one factor. The issue is whether race must always supersede all other factors and the answer obviously should be no. It is bewildering that you could call the Supreme Court lawless for believing there are factors other than race to be considered.

@quackquack said
No, when drawing districts there are many factors to consider. Race (at most) is one factor. The issue is whether race must always supersede all other factors and the answer obviously should be no. It is bewildering that you could call the Supreme Court lawless for believing there are factors other than race to be considered.

Have you seen the map?
Notice anything?
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=alabama+state+legislative+map&atb=v295-1&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F
%2Fmedia.breitbart.com%2Fmedia%2F2022%2F02%2FALCongressi
onalMap-775x1024.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
A panel of three federal judges on Jan. 24 ruled that the map unlawfully deprived Black voters of an additional House district in which they could be a majority or close to it, likely violating the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

@quackquack said
No, when drawing districts there are many factors to consider. Race (at most) is one factor. The issue is whether race must always supersede all other factors and the answer obviously should be no. It is bewildering that you could call the Supreme Court lawless for believing there are factors other than race to be considered.

Did you even read the article in the OP? Or did you just watch Fox News?

From the OP's article, a court unanimously blocked the map, saying that voting in Alabama is "polarized along racial lines".

A court agreed with this. The Supreme Court did not overturn the lower court's ruling, they simply blocked their ruling from immediately taking effect, so the 2022 elections can take place with those racially drawn lines districts in tact.

@vivify said
Did you even read the article in the OP? Or did you just watch Fox News?

From the OP's article, a court "unanimously blocked the map, saying that voting in Alabama is "polarized along racial lines".

A court agreed with this. The Supreme Court did not overturn the lower court's ruling, they simply blocked their ruling from immediately taking effect, so the 2022 elections can take place with those racially drawn lines districts in tact.

No the Court did not block the ruling immediately taking effect so the 2022 elections can take place. They blocked the ruling from taking place so they have time to decide what, if any role, race should play in drawing districts,

@quackquack said
No the Court did not block the ruling immediately taking effect so the 2022 elections can take place. They blocked the ruling from taking place so they have time to decide what, if any role, race should play in drawing districts,

From the article:

In a written opinion, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the lower court blocked Alabama's map too close to the 2022 election, contravening Supreme Court precedent.

"Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties and voters, among others," Kavanaugh wrote.

Right from the source. Except this is BS because the election is nine months away.

@quackquack said
No the Court did not block the ruling immediately taking effect so the 2022 elections can take place. They blocked the ruling from taking place so they have time to decide what, if any role, race should play in drawing districts,

Oh yeah, until AFTER the mid-terms...........
Gotta' give it A LOT of thought 😕

@no1marauder said
Hardly.

Just another example, among many, of white right wingers being unwilling to do anything to address to effects of systemic racism and invidious discrimination in the US.

The VRA passed the House by 328-74 and the Senate by 79-18 in 1965. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

Not only this, but it has been reauthorized and amended 5 times since then with broad bipartisan support and survived lots and lots of legal challenges in the last 55 years.