Republican led Congressional Maps Rejected by the SCOTUS
- Thread starter kalimgoodman
- Start date
i simply dont beleive alabama is in any way racist bigoted or dumb. just too difficult to comprehend...
Watch the use of the term racist to describe racist behavior around here...management finds that to be a thread deletion and member suspendable offense
Remember….. gerrymandering is only bad when Republicans do it.
You would think they would be more turned off by being promised a bunch of lies around election time for 50 years...and nothing changed for them. Whoda thunk....
Yeah...these are SO ANNOYING...only one race on the planet playes this card
Looks like the entire Hiden Crime Family is about to get the book thrown at them, so @kalimgoodman and @RayGravesGhost will need more distractions so look for more 'racial injustice' threads.
Why are you making this about race?
It was about the courts and state constitution's role in gerrymandering, something both parties do.
You do realize one of the key dissenters was black don't you?
Leftist gerrymandering = okay
Republican gerrymandering = racist
Ha!
Republican gerrymandering = racist
Ha!
Why is it not about race? The defendants argued against it based on race. They made it about race and the SCOTUS agreed.
Show me where the majority opinion of the court made this about race.
Of course the plaintiffs are going to bring it up, just like you are here, but that's race baiting and identity politics...which is the left's platform on any issue they think it helps them with. And it doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which is the interpretation of how federal election rules are set.
Anyway - here's the majority opinion and the dissent, hat tip @Uniformed_ReRe . Find me the passage where the majority opinion even mentions the word race. I'll patiently wait.
Loading…
www.supremecourt.gov
Furthermore, what race is the judge who wrote the dissent? Have any comments about that?
That's because the Republicans tend make their maps based on race, while Democrats tend to make their maps based on politics. It's really that simple.
Go read the filing and oral arguments. Like it or not, they argued about race. So it was based on race.
CT doesn't help your argument. He has always been anti everything black, once he benefitted from it. That is well known.
ANOTHER PERFECT example of the left commie/socialists ACUUSING US...of what they DO...and have done for decades! LOLOLOL You CANNOT make this BS up. Just caught your twin ReRe doing the exact same thing in another thread.
Also, that link is from the NC ruling. I didn't mention the NC ruling.
Here is Roberts talking race (majority);
"A district is not equally open, in other words, when minority voters face – unlike their majority peers – bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the State, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter".
Since you love to bring up CT, here are his words (dissent) from the Alabama ruling;
"Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population"
His dissent clearly mentions race because the ruling was based on race.
DocumentCloud
www.documentcloud.org
Just say I was right and drop that topic and focus on understanding that black people notice that it's only one party trying to underrepresent black people when they can.
We should give black people two votes in the name of equity.
This is about @kalimgoodman starting a thread about 'racial injustice' as an attempt to distract from his guy being exposed in real time as being a traitor to America.
This is what he and @RayGravesGhost will continue to do until it reaches a point where they can't take the bad news coming out about their guy, and they will both go into hiding like the unAmerican cowards that they are.
Let's talk about what you notice....
You notice that the guy you voted for is being outed as a traitor to his country.
In real-time.
The media will need a distraction. So will the libs that tote water for them.
NOT TRUE. The Dems and the Repubs BOTH gerrymander to make districts wherein THEY WILL WIN the seat in Congress. RACE does not come into other then, the DEMS and Repubs both know that most black Americans tend to vote democrat, so they both tear apart there neighborhoods trying to get the most votes that favor THEIR party.
It's from today, you're not good at dates. It was dated June 27th 2023. You posted the same thing that I did 😆Also, that link is from the NC ruling. I didn't mention the NC ruling.
Here is Roberts talking race (majority);
"A district is not equally open, in other words, when minority voters face – unlike their majority peers – bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the State, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter".
Since you love to bring up CT, here are his words (dissent) from the Alabama ruling;
"Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population"
His dissent clearly mentions race because the ruling was based on race.
DocumentCloud
Just say I was right and drop that topic and focus on understanding that black people notice that it's only one party trying to underrepresent black people when they can.
And you're pulling quotes from cited case law. Roberts was trying to cite precedent, that doesn't mean his opinion was based on race. Those are not his words, but I wouldn't expect you to be smart enough to understand that based on previous interactions I've had with you.
This was a federal court giving state courts more power than the Constitution appears to provide. The ruling wasn't about race. It was about making sure that the state legislature had the courts reviewing and weighing in on their decisions regarding voting laws. At the end of the day it does make sense. although I'm sort of surprised given the makeup of the court it went this way, the Constitution is pretty clear.
And the ruling works for both parties - a conservative legislature and conservative court (or vice versa) will have the same effect as if the independent state legislature theory was confirmed by SCOTUS.
This is a better synopsis of the legal issue at hand, I'm so sorry it's not as much about race as you want it to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the heart of the case was a controversial legal concept dubbed the "independent state legislature" theory, which contends the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides state legislators alone the power to govern federal elections unencumbered by traditional oversight from state constitutions, courts and governors.
Election and democracy experts warned the theory, if adopted in its most extreme application, could have a dramatic impact on how elections are run and voting rules are written in the U.S.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the theory, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the Elections Clause "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review."Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented.
"In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution," Roberts wrote.
And here's Thomas' dissent in a short summary...what race does he belong to again, and why won't you answer that question?
"This is a straightforward case of mootness," Thomas wrote. "The federal defense no longer makes any difference to this case- whether we agree with the defense, disagree with it, or say nothing at all, the final judgment in this litigation will be exactly the same."
I'm aware, that you provide a ruling that I didn't mention. I never said that NC ruling was about race.
Of course they cite laws in their ruling. They also add opinions. They do both. Both the dissent and majority spoke of race in those 2 rulings. You are not helping yourself. Both of those cases were about race and argued by the lawyers as such.
I get that you guys want to believe in this fantasy world that race isn't a thing anymore but we are not there...yet.
So long as 92% of the black vote goes to Dems it will be about race. And yes there are still racists out there, I don’t think it’s an issue for people that don’t want it to be, but we do live in a victim society. Half our electorate is currently still crying about an “unfair” election instead of looking at the crook they support. It’s everywhere and it’s pitiful.
This is racist in itself. One of the dumbest things I know in life. Democrats come promising the world at election time, and get 92% of the black vote. PLEASE...ANYONE...tell me what they actually ever got for their vote. I will stand by for your answers.....
You’re gaslighting Kalim.
Both of us posted the exact same SCOTUS ruling, the only person to bring up the lower court’s ruling was you….and I’m still trying to figure out why.
Neither Justice mentioned race in their rulings. Previous cases did involve race issues in gerrymandering but the law had nothing to do race or racism here - it was an interpretation of what role state courts can play in election laws.
Roberts and the majority ruled that the legislature is in the driver’s seat, but that they can be checked by the state courts. But those courts cannot act as lawmakers, they can only review challenges to laws made by the legislature. I have heard some legal analysis that this ruling could actually play out in the legislature’s favor because it narrowly defines their power…although it feels like a loss because the argument was that they had none.
If the justices mentioned race so much give me a quote from their opinion that even mentions it. It wasn’t even on their radar…one that isn’t case law being cited. If you need me to explain that to you just ask, I’d be happy to help.
Or you could save yourself the time and admit you’re in over your head, and another race bait attempt fell short.
Boy sure seems like lots of people race baiting and none of them get suspended....
Isn't this exactly what you threatened me with via private message Fresno?
To the point of this post and its inherent misinformation on racial demogrpahics in voting
Up until the passage of the Civil Rights Acts blacks did indeed vote much more for the republican party than they do today. And like EVERY OTHER group in America if their interests are not being met by a particular party they will vote against that party.
That's what happened when conservative whites did not vote for the CRA
Black people rejected white conservatism and began voting heavily for the liberals that supported the CRA
Black voting has been that way ever since
So to answer rascist ron's dumbass question...
"What have they ever got for their vote?"
Answer: The Civil RIghts Act
You really don’t understand gerrymandering.
Both sides do it the exact same way and it’s “racist” in the exact same way.
The goal is to spread your votes evenly so you get the most districts possible.
So you are accusing the R’s of putting all of the black votes into the same district so it goes 90/10 dem so those votes don’t go to more balanced districts and flip them.
What in the hell do you think the democrats do!? The SAME THING. They count on the black vote being 92% democrat so they try to spread those votes into less democrat-heavy districts to capture more seats in the house.
Both parties are doing the same thing, the same way, but when Republicans do it it’s racist.
Do you sense a pattern here?
It’s not racist but I really wish the black vote were more evenly split, does say a bit about the pubs not being able to triangulate the math here. Like I said they have far more racists voting for them. Still they should do better.
Sort of like the idea of redistricting to guarantee more black representation.
Whether you agree with this decision or not, it was gerrymandering by the SCOTUS.
I don’t necessarily agree. If you read the synopsis above…it didn’t give the legislature carte blanche like I read the Constitution.
BUT - it did severely limit the courts and make clear they can’t write legislation. So the next time liberals try to use the courts to override the State Legislature it won’t fly. Long term this might not end up being a bad ruling. We’ll see.
Quit pretending that you understand complex points. We know you don't. You act shocked, perplexed but never make a point...thus concealing your lack of insight and understanding.
You do this regularly. No one is fooled...so just stop embarrassing yourself.
Lol, my man I competed at a very high level this board isn’t high level it’s a joke. Another great example of being completely unaware of reality.
Just to put some color on this 26% of Bama is black, it’s roughly 50/50 Dems to pubs yet 7/8 congressional seats are pubs. Doesn’t necessarily mean they are cheating but it certainly cannot be ruled out and should be looked at. It’s just maff people
At issue...25% of Alabamians are black. However, only 1 out of 7 districts are majority black.
It seems to me that the court found that the districts were gerrymandered. The solution? More gerrymandering, of course.
Perhaps that's over simplified but that's what I'm hearing.
