@quackquack saidYou're too funny.
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.
The lines were specifically drawn to reduce black representation. That's about as clear a violation of the VRA as you can get.
1 edit
@quackquack saidYes, of course it did block the ruling, which was already decided unanimously by conservative-leaning district court.
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,
How much time before an election is it ok to legally challenge gerrymandered redistricting? Because there are several ongoing legal challenges proceeding just fine.
@quackquack saidIt's not the left. The Voting Rights Act enjoyed broad bipartisan support since 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 ...[text shortened]... at are drawn with the intention of systematically diluting their vote should be struck down as well.
If you have issues with the VRA, that's up to legislatures. The court shouldn't be writing legislation. Right?
@wildgrass saidCourts decide whether parts of legislation are constitutional. If part of the Voting Rights Act requires that the majority is constantly being diluted by forcing a disproportionate number of black majority districts when they have only 27% of the population then that part of the legislation should be struck down. The court isn't being lawless when it decides to do its job.
It's not the left. The Voting Rights Act enjoyed broad bipartisan support since 1965.
If you have issues with the VRA, that's up to legislatures. The court shouldn't be writing legislation. Right?
@no1marauder saidObviously it isn't clear. The court will decide and frankly a group that has 27% of the population isn't entitled to automatically be the majority in two out of seven districts.
You're too funny.
The lines were specifically drawn to reduce black representation. That's about as clear a violation of the VRA as you can get.
@quackquack saidNo, this is wrong. The VRA (and many subsequent laws) exists and has existed for 55 years. It has survived many legal challenges and nothing has changed with regard to the constitutionality of the VRA.
Courts decide whether parts of legislation are constitutional. If part of the Voting Rights Act requires that the majority is constantly being diluted by forcing a disproportionate number of black majority districts when they have only 27% of the population then that part of the legislation should be struck down. The court isn't being lawless when it decides to do its job.
If SCOTUS thought the lower court made a mistake in interpretation, they did not say. In fact, John Roberts said exactly the opposite and none of the conservative justices disagreed.
This court did not rule on the law when the overturned the lower courts decision, that's what makes the ruling lawless.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
1 edit
@wildgrass said24% BLACK
No, this is wrong. The VRA (and many subsequent laws) exists and has existed for 55 years. It has survived many legal challenges and nothing has changed with regard to the constitutionality of the VRA.
If SCOTUS thought the lower court made a mistake in interpretation, they did not say. In fact, John Roberts said exactly the opposite and none of the conservative justices ...[text shortened]... rule on the law when the overturned the lower courts decision, that's what makes the ruling lawless.
14% REPRESENTATION
@jimm619 saidIt's not 14% representation. Everyone gets to vote --no one has a right to have a majority district.
24% BLACK
14% REPRESENTATION
If 25% of Alabama is college graduates should they get two majority districts? If 50% of people own land should they get 3.5 districts? If 27% are liberals do they get two districts. Do Latinos get their own district?
It simply is impossible to give everyone a majority voice and the court would be rise to decide that absolutely no one is entitled to a majority district.
@wildgrass saidThe question is whether the precedent is right. Plessy v. Ferguson was a precedent too; it does not mean that we should have segregation. Stupid rules need not last forever and it is clearly stupid to decide that because of race we have to continue to give minority groups majority districts when there are an infinite number of groups who would want the same benefit.
The point is there is legal precedent for a court ruling that SCOTUS overturned because of a feeling. This is ridiculous.
@quackquack
Doing their job is one thing.
Doing it without right wing agenda is impossible with the current SCOTUS.
That is EXACTLY why people can't trust SCOTUS now.
We KNOW the court is bent to the right, HARD right.
That is NOT the way to help Americans.
Sure, WHITEY will love the coming right wing decisions but minorities will be once more on the back burner, who cares they can't vote, can't get abortions, can't get decent housing, so what, they are sub human so who gives a shyte.
@sonhouse saidIm not sure why you think it is a white person's fault if a black person in Alabama can't get abortion. But regardless of your bizarre views the Supreme Court should rule that no group (racial or otherwise) can challenge a districting ruling simply by declaring that they would have more majority groups in a different drawing of lines.
@quackquack
Doing their job is one thing.
Doing it without right wing agenda is impossible with the current SCOTUS.
That is EXACTLY why people can't trust SCOTUS now.
We KNOW the court is bent to the right, HARD right.
That is NOT the way to help Americans.
Sure, WHITEY will love the coming right wing decisions but minorities will be once more on the back burn ...[text shortened]... te, can't get abortions, can't get decent housing, so what, they are sub human so who gives a shyte.
1 edit
@quackquack saidPlessy v. Ferguson was an interpretation of the 14th amendment based on legal arguments.
The question is whether the precedent is right. Plessy v. Ferguson was a precedent too; it does not mean that we should have segregation. Stupid rules need not last forever and it is clearly stupid to decide that because of race we have to continue to give minority groups majority districts when there are an infinite number of groups who would want the same benefit.
The specific rationale in this particular case is that the district court decision was made too close to the mid-term election, which is 9 months away. It is based on nothing and lawless by design.
The VRA is very clear on this, so barring a change to the law I think this court rapidly losing legitimacy with extra-legal decision-making.
2 edits
Whew. Multiple additional 4-3 decisions about voting rights and gerrymandering have come down from conservative-leaning state supreme courts which have upheld the law. You can read the details below, but it is clear that all three decisions should have been unanimous.
The shocking thing is reading the dissenting opinions. Just like Kavanaugh, they are lawless. They use hazy logic like unreferenced "weighty issues" and "constitutional principles" without ever actually explaining themselves.
The VRA, which was UNANIMOUSLY (when does that ever happen?) approved in 2006 is in trouble by extremely partisan justices who don't even bother interpreting laws. If these hair-thin decisions start going the other way like they are in SCOTUS, the courts legitimacy is in serious trouble. I don't know how citizens will continue to stand for extra-legal decision making from courts.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/ohio-wisconsin-state-supreme-court-gerrymandering-voter-fraud.html
@shavixmir
Lifetime is ridiculous. They should not have to have a political litmus test to get into office, the criteria of NON politicalness should be the top spec to pick a new SCOTUS.