Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you prefer trump injustice? LOL, you are a gem of a human being.Yay! Another 'racial injustice' thread!
Remember….. gerrymandering is only bad when Republicans do it.Because they "under represented" Black people or "too racist" for the black people in those states. This is what most black see that make them turned off by the Republican party as a whole. This isn't happening with Democrat-led congressional maps.
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 cardYay! Another 'racial injustice' thread!
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.Yeah...these are SO ANNOYING...only one race on the planet playes this card
Why are you making this about race?
Why is it not about race? The defendants argued against it based on race. They made it about race and the SCOTUS agreed.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?
Show me where the majority opinion of the court made this about race.Why is it not about race? The defendants argued against it based on race. They made it about race and the SCOTUS agreed.
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.Leftist gerrymandering = okay
Republican gerrymandering = racist
Ha!
Republicans really are nazi’s.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.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?
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.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.
Also, that link is from the NC ruling. I didn't mention the NC ruling.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?
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.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.
Let's talk about what you notice....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.
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.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.
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
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.
I'm aware, that you provide a ruling that I didn't mention. I never said that NC ruling was about race.It's from today, you're not good at dates. It was dated June 27th 2023. You posted the same thing that I did 😆
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."
They do have more racists among them that’s for sure.Republicans really are nazi’s.
We should do something about them.
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.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.
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.....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.
What's the deal with your avatar?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.
You’re gaslighting Kalim.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.
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 really don’t understand gerrymandering.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.
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.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.....
We should give black people two votes in the name of equity.
Lol, Jesus.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.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.
Lol, Jesus.
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.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.
Competed at what? Trolling free political forums?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.
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.