385
Shockingly, Clarence Thomas side with the racists.
And it's totally a coincidence that his opinions line up perfectly with the people who regularly bribe him.
He's the butler from Django
Worse, that character in Django Unchained is a House [slave] and they were put in charge of other slaves because they kiss the most ass for literal decades and get to live in the house with the master.
Uncle Clarence (Tom)
The butler in Django wasn’t a Supreme Court justice… so it’s much much worse
I think this is the one time he went with the same members of the court. There were no dissents. Take your guess, is he trying to reduce controversy on himself, or is he pissed that Bama tried to undermine his authority?
Usually the rule of thumb is to follow the money, however in this case it's seeing where the money is not coming from. Having one district in AL flip from Republican to Democrat isn't going to cause Thomas to loose an all expenses paid vacation or a complimentary personal jet trip.
When you have one of the most conservative SCs in history telling you to redraw the lines, you know shit's fucked up. Alabama doesn't care. It's the armpit of the south. Sorry if you're from Alabama, but you know what your state is.
Special court appointed master already has drawn two black districts. Fucking cope Alabama.
One of these days, Alabama will do something good of its own volition, and we won't have to drag them kicking and screaming away from being racist.
Some day.
Also SCOTUS has been stacked to side with these people, but are taking plenty of heat for a while do this is for now, to prove they’re not corrupt pieces of garbage, until the slow businessmen’s plot completes.
Now all they have to do is ignore the court! It's working in Ohio!
It’s wild, but they basically already did. That’s what this decision was about. SCOTUS ordered Alabama to fix their map back in June, and Alabama just straight up ignored them.
Alabama just straight up ignored them.
I dunno, I kinda see it as a toddler trying to haggle about their bedtime or getting a cookie.
Ohio could do it because the "independent" redistricting commission is run by the governor's son and is only bipartisan in that they were forced to allow democrats on by border initiative that changed the state constitution. Ohios maps didn't have a SCOTUS ruling, just a state Supreme Court ruling and the GOP just had to wait out a year so they could shove a more conservative justice on than the one that was retiring and had sided with the liberal justices.
I wonder if this would still hold in light of Alabama. If you can make the same case that this is diluting an ethnicity's voting power, I think a court would have to overturn it. Especially since Alabama just got bitch slapped here by the court again.
Ohio doesn't have the racial demographic bunching that Alabama does, which from my understanding is who they were able to show easily that the appropriate maps could be drawn and even presented multiple appropriate maps in the Alabama lawsuit. Also Ohio did not sue because of racial gerrymandering, they sued because the maps violated the state constitution. Now that there is a new state SC and Dems did better in 2022 than expected Ohio dropped the suit because they won't win.
Ah damnit
The court ordered that a special master draw the lines for the next election, so it sounds like they've pre-empted the Ohio strategy.
This is painful but we do have a constitutional mechanism for states that can't figure their electoral shit out legally. Their representatives don't get seated. And they don't get electoral college ballots for president.
It's a 200 year old can of political fuckery that we may just have to open.
So to recap:
AL: "Look these maps are totally fine"
SCOTUS: "Nope, redraw them"
AL: "You're the last person I thought would say that, but alright fine. We've made adjustments to comply."
Another court: "No you didn't, you just changed proportions in a way that's unlikely to have any effect"
AL: "Nah it's totally fine!"
Another court: "No it's not. An independent entity will draw the maps since you racist fucks are incapable"
AL: "That is unfair, these maps are fine! Tell them, SCOTUS!"
SCOTUS: "Nope we're not getting involved. The maps are still bad."
...
Seriously though I'm confused why the Court is being... agreeable.
"You're the last person I thought would say that" 😂😂😂
That's not funny. That's sad.
Sometimes you have to choose between laughing and crying 😒
Fair enough. I do frequently have to laugh so I don't cry.
They have enough bad press as it is. Don't want another reason for Congress to start regulating their bribes.
I think here going to try and make their own code of ethics first. That's the impression I get from Kagan and Kavanaugh commenting. It should be interesting to see if the highest court in the land tries weasel words.
The point of the federalist society isn't to just smash and grab power overtly everywhere all at once. They know they can still get the legislative results they want with Alabama having a second black district.
So they aren't going to waste political capital on it.
With the margins that in the House currently it could very well change who holds the House, and accordingly the legislative results.
The expert appointed by the district court is Richard Allen, and he has already completed his work and submitted 3 maps for the 3 judge panel to choose from.
This is good news. I think most of what they were doing was to try and delay any changes until after another election.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The case has been closely watched because after the court’s June ruling, Alabama GOP lawmakers again approved a congressional map with only one majority-Black district, seemingly flouting the Supreme Court’s decision that they provide more political representation for the state’s Black residents.
Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, argued that the new map kept communities of interest intact, unifying the so-called Black Belt of the state.
Marshall argued the lower court had erred in requiring that a second majority-Black district be drawn.
“The court gutted the State’s discretion to apply traditional redistricting principles in 2023, by expressly refusing to defer to them when they didn’t yield the ‘right’ racial results,” Marshall said.
Challengers to the map, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU and others, had urged the justices to reject the state’s bid arguing that the map in question dilutes the power of Black voters.
They charged the state with “unabashedly” defying an opinion the justices issued just three months ago.
The original article contains 532 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
385 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3801 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS