Yesterday, the Supreme Court held the long-awaited argument in Louisiana v. Callais, considering an appeal of Louisiana’s congressional map. The two majority-black districts are being challenged under the 15th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as unconstitutionally gerrymandered on the basis of race. The case could result in a rejection of race-based congressional districting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Notably, the Louisiana case was previously argued, but on the last day before the summer recess, the court issued an order setting the case for a second oral argument in the 2025-26 term. It later directed the litigants to file briefs addressing:
“whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violates either the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment, which bars the government from denying or restricting voting rights based on race.”
On Wednesday, I was addressing the annual conference of chief judges, speaking on the Supreme Court. I discussed some of the current cases, including Louisiana v. Callais. I noted that there may now be a majority in favor of a significant change on Section 2, but that some of us would be listening for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett as indicators of the Court balance.
We did hear from Kavanaugh and Barrett and the challengers could take heart in the skepticism that they expressed over the indefinite use of race in such districting.
The oral argument took an interesting turn when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sought to push back on the need to show a discriminatory intent. She interjected:
“I guess I’m thinking of it, of the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities.
And so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn’t matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary. That’s irrelevant.
Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible. I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system.
They’re disabled. In fact, we use the word disabled in Milligan. We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”
Justice Jackson appears to be referring to this paragraph in Allen v. Milligan:
“Individuals thus lack an equal opportunity to participate in the political process when a State’s electoral structure operates in a manner that “minimize[s] or cancel[s] out the[ir] voting strength.” Id., at 47. That occurs where an individual is disabled from “enter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner” “in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise.” White, 412 U. S., at 767, 770. 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.” (emphasis added)
The court was not making an analogy to the ADA (though, in fairness to Justice Jackson, she was not suggesting that it made that point). It is also worth noting that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
“We have understood the language of §2 against the background of the hard-fought compromise that Congress struck. To that end, we have reiterated that §2 turns on the presence of discriminatory effects, not discriminatory intent.”
Milligan was deeply fractured and the question is whether five justices would now elect to set aside or reframe some of these former rulings.
During the oral argument, Roberts seemed to do precisely that in the use of Milligan, remarking “That case took the existing precedent as a given, it was a case in which we were considering Alabama’s particular challenge based on … what turned out to be an improper evidentiary showing.”
Moreover, Justice Kavanaugh (who was one of the concurrences in Milligan) suggested that we might have reached “the end point” on such race-based districting: “[T]his Court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but … they should not be indefinite and should have a[n] end point.”
Now, back to the ADA analogy.
The disabled face permanent and ongoing physical disabilities in accessing buildings and spaces. While Jackson was stressing that intent does not matter when it comes to discrimination against the disabled, the question of the other justices is whether the use of race-based districts will continue indefinitely. The ADA is permanent because the disabilities are permanent. The analogy plays into the very point of justices like Kavanaugh on whether race-based districting would continue ad infinitum.
If the oral argument is a reflection of the eventual votes of the justices, there now seems to be a working majority of justices willing to bring “an end point” to race-based districting. The result would have tremendous legal and political impact.
Legally, one of the most litigated areas of elections would be largely curtailed. The Voting Rights Act would still be used to prevent measures to inhibit voting and to protect the right to vote for every citizen. However, the constant districting controversies over guaranteeing majority black districts would come to an end.
The move would also be a major additional move of the Roberts court to eliminate the use of race-based classifications in society from college admissions to election districting. In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that position most succinctly by declaring that the “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Politically, any loss of such gerrymandering on the basis of race could impact the Democrats who hold the vast majority of these districts.
Of course, the Court could again fracture as it did in Milligan on the rationale for any opinion. What was notable about the oral argument is that there appeared to be at least five justices considering a threshold rejection of race-based districting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Americans are in charge of culture, and usually lead our politicians and Judges. There was a period where multiculturalists got their way (affirmative action, DEI), and it had both positive and negative effects. But Americans of all races have decided to be a post-racial melting pot and meritocracy, and are moving along on this path. We’re making real progress in rejecting excuse-making social theories based on race and long-ago history. Now, the focus has shifted to expectations — setting positive expectations of growing and adapting to thrive in a competitive-cooperative meritocracy. This means getting rid of sociology statistics sliced and diced by race and other immutables, and basing it instead on actionables. Research is only valuable that can be applied by individuals and couples to make better life decisions. Social science academics take note. You need to stop publishing results that telegraph low expectations. The same for you progressive Dems — get over your savior complex that implicitly puts yourself in a superior status over those you call “marginalized”. SCOTUS will end section 2 gerrymandering, following the lead of the American people to further meritocratize voting behavior, elect post-racialist candidates, and put racial-block-voting into the dustbin of history.
No all disabilities are not permanent! People recover, fakers are caught and some people refuse the cure that medical science discovers. Just ask the VA, social security disability, doctors, family members and neighbors. Thus some severe illogical thought process going on in Brown’s thinking.
*. Polarized or bloc voting is practiced by blacks. In Louisiana districts, how often do black democrats vote for white democrats? It’s not their preference. Given a choice black democrats are polarized .
The question is there a sufficient black population to establish a 2nd black majority district.. presumably gerrymandering must be employed to do such.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The quality of candidate is of no gravity. Someone , in some way, must address partisan gerrymandering by minorities. If partisan gerrymandering is employed in each district then it’s open to all.
Bloc voting is deadly to quality candidates and freedom. The courts are and have been in error for a very long time. Look at congress as evidence of your labor.
I still have faith in the court even with congress as ill evidence.
*. In a nation where all men are created equal means there aren’t preferential groups. Once you started the special groups it no longer works. Now everyone is a special group.
What the hell do these people think a majority minority is? The SCOTUS opinions are bad opinions. They completely disregard the quality of candidates as a sound reason for choice.
I think it means or references royalty. Royalty had to go as a political system. I did not watch the inane no kings protests today. It seems DJT was elected.
It’s time to sunset gerrymandering among other problems. It’s time elected officials think about real problems in job access in poverty traps throughout States instead of donors for the next election and re-election.
Interesting case. Some intelligent people on SCOTUS, too.
^^^One more thing, it’s really ok to have good will, to help and not harm.
Thank you , PT, for the interesting posts.
Welcome to the world of equality. Some are equal to bums and others to brick layers and others to chefs or moguls and whatever you are.
Ain’t it grand? Don’t bite off more than you can chew. The Peter principle? Try helpfulness instead of competition sometimes.
*. 😂 😂 This is a humdinger case, PT.
The precedents will be tossed. A mathematical formulation must be developed based on population only, contiguous and compact by population.
Flipping districts is gaming. The census must include questions regarding citizenship as only citizens can vote and a count of lawful others. Illegal tourists cannot be counted for representation purposes.
😂 thanks SCOTUS
^^^ This brings to mind Leticia James and her primary residence for census purposes? Is she counted twice in two States? There’s a new job.
Segmenting the population of states, counties, cities, etc. into geographical units with roughly the same number of people in each has been a feature of urban planning, services delivery, etc going back well over 50 years. It is NOT based on skin color, political affiliation, size of geograhical area, etc. The intention is that it allows the most efficient provision of services to each of the resulting groups.
Any particular reason why the same process and the criteria used cannot be done to divide states into voting districts?
Image Of The City
https://www.amazon.com/Image-City-Kevin-Lynch/dp/0262620014
The Water Down effect. Apply equal protection for all skin colors. Every color is a minority somewhere. Basic racism to game the system is being used. The reason it must be ended. The partisan effect matters and Newsom has it on display. Compact requirement deletes gerrymandering. Or apply it across the board.
Just stoopid. It’s so dysfunctional because of block voting. Pare it backnto 2 reps per State and save the money. The senate always is a block vote by 2 or 3 people. Everyone go home and let the 2 or 3 vote. Waste of time and money and no one knows what’s in those darn bills.
*. It’s racism so embrace segregation. Kick back everything to States that can be and live like you want.
It’s block voting that’s giving the US communism , Mamdani in NY, mutilation of children recommended by school districts and every other minority issue possible.
Construct conservative States without block voting and keep yourselves and children safe. To hell with them…
^^^ no proofreading. Oops to Noah Webster.
It’s segregation and that’s fine if that’s what you need but go total segregation. States can run themselves. Every minority by even proclivity or preference can have their say. Mutilate children by State but not as part of the feds or united states. Shoot each other from dawn till dusk but guard the interstate roads.
Maybe it’s a great idea. Water down the Christian votes and harass Jewish people. Disrupt colleges and roads and business but some States will finally have the right to say–> not here.
They’re already conducting international trade by States. There is nothing they won’t do. Cinnamon has lead in it and shrimp is radioactive.
^^^ AND every State pays for their own federal reps and Senators and Bureaucracy so cough it up California and NY. Maybe they’ll expect more in that way.
What a dolt Newsom is SCOTUS.
Yes, the reason is there’s no money in it.
R you 4 real regarding government being more efficient with Gerry mandering. thomas wolff
Give them each a copy of Sim City 4 [a legacy computer program]. They will have fun figuring what works and what doesn’t work. Hint – the population flows in or out of the city respond to each planning decision.
The goal for drawing congressional districts should be that the process is based only on the geographic distribution of citizens without any other consideration (e.g., political affiliation, racial demographics, etc.). The boundary conditions are equal population per district, contiguity and compactness. Mathematical techniques that can accomplish this are available and have been demonstrated by professors Imai (Harvard, government and statistics) and Mattingly (Duke, mathematics and statistics). This opens the door to producing congressional maps objectively rather than the subjective process presently used by states and subsequent judgment calls by courts when a particular group is unhappy with the result.
Given the above it would appear appropriate to further investigate the work of Imai and Mattingly and when deemed ready for “prime time” have Congress federalize the process across the nation in accordance with the Constitution’s Election Clause which states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” The “Manner” of elections has been interpreted to include redistricting, allowing Congress to preempt state laws and impose uniform federal standards or processes to ensure fairness and impartiality.
Let the mathematicians and statisticians put the final touches on the technique and then have Congress by Law impose uniform federal standards and processes that will ensure fairness and impartiality.
“The goal for drawing congressional districts should be that the process is based only on the geographic distribution of citizens without any other consideration …” Yeah, in a perfect world where one race wasn’t held in slavery for more than a century and then held down politically, legally, educationally, and economically until 60 years ago. Thinking we’d come out of this fast, and everything would be good by now is a combination of idiocy and wishful thinking. Time? The appropriate time is when the results of that very bad treatment of a minority by the majority is no longer clear cut, and therefore race is no longer a predictable indicator of voting preferences, not when Republican judges get tired of thinking about it.
Past time for leftists to stop treating blacks as dimwitted children who can’t do for themselves and aren’t accountable for their misdeeds. It’s insulting and harmful. They aren’t pets.
Young, the leftists are showing improvement. In the 1800s, the leftists thought of blacks as subhuman pawns.
“The two majority-black districts . . .” (JT)
According to the Left, voting districts created based on race are *not* racist. While creating districts *not* based on race is racist.
As usual, the Left has the formula exactly wrong.
Exactly wrong, you say?
*. Take a moment and appreciate Ms. Jackson’s analogy of ADA and skin color. ADA addresses a major life function such as blind, deaf, mental retardation, asthma involves breathing, birth defects absence of limbs, and a host of life functions , life itself. Black skin is NOT a life function, mam. A black person can walk up steps, drive cars, breathe, and is not life impaired.
She doesn’t know what a woman is either. No, mam, dark skin may be immutable but it is not a major life function. Ya gotta laugh. Black people have been seen driving cars and running track and field, mam.
Hello, good night.
*. Creating new districts based on skin color in 2025 is gaming the system. It’s partisan gaming. Mam, all skin colors are equal.
Let us all know if you can’t vote. Thank you. I told you over and over, people –> 2 reps from each State. Save your money. Maybe count up number of registered dems and repubs. No need to vote at all.
Disabled voting is right. No thought required. To be fair, PT, to Ms Jackson ? She wasn’t saying blacks are disabled? The EFFECT is an added dem district. 😂. It’s EFFECT is partisan.
Just count registration, forget voting. WTH
good evening, goodbye. The ol bait and switch won’t work on the majority of scotus. They’re sharp. 😂
Mam, skin color doesn’t have to mean you’re a minority. It’s not immutable. JOIN THE MAJORITY. eye roll
Omg
*. OHN, get those poor disabled black people their own parking places right next to the door.
Reserved parking!
^^^^ Madea
The Court asked the parties to brief if the SECOND majority-minority district violated 14A, So, I am assuming the 1st maj-min district was not gerrymandered based on race, but rather came about from non-discriminatory means?
I tried to look it up. Got nowhere. Look at a district map for Louisiana and see if it’s gerrymandered. The shape won’t make sense.
If I were arguing for this I’d use Mississippi rural towns of 10 thou or fewer. They’re 90% black and poverty. I’d gerrymander those people into a black district already existing. Try to improve the town itself by bringing in some jobs or industry.
They’re vacated cotton and soy towns and everywhere. In some states they’re white people in poverty, old coal mining. The problem becomes the usual- dishonesty in money allocations.
Best wishes
*. KBJ conflates skin color and bad dem ideas in saying blck dems aren’t electable in non black majority districts. That may be false because a better candidate may be available in non black majority districts. KBJ sees everything as skin color.
The way to get rid of racism is to stop using race. Get better ideas instead. KBJ ushered in child porn and trans libraries for elementary schools. 😏 get better ideas.
Done with this. Hey Gavin, white repubs are under represented in California. Yee ha!
No, it probably was just a natural block of people, without drawing a crazy district, thus it was OK, but if this passes, nothing will stop Louisiana and Alabama from doing what all of ew England and California has done, and making sure that no Dem Districts survive. In N.E. they vote 40% republican but have zero seats. In Cali. they vote 43% Republican but only have 9 of 52 seats. I am pretty sure the SC is saying, if its OK fir the Dem Party to do this they shouldn’t be able to stop Republican states from doing this based on the lie that it is all about Race, its ALL ABOUT Politics in reality. Another by product of this BS was to get all blacks voting one way. Having a black Sen. from South Car. helps prove this is not needed, and some black Republican House members like Mia Love (RIP) and the gent in Fl. running fir Gov. is proof blacks can get elected in these districts. Now blacks might just quit electing crazy leftists, and start running as Centrists.
Remember Sydney Lori Reid.
She was the woman who was accused of assaulting and injuring an officer in DC. The injury consisted of a scratch on the officer’s hand. Jeanine “Boxwine” Pirro tried to indict her on felony charges, but the grand jury rejected her 3 times.
Pirro eventually filed misdemeanor charges, which went to a jury trial.
She has just been acquitted of all charges.
The defense obtained the officer’s text messages in discovery.
The officer who was “assaulted” spent 3 days on the witness stand trying to explain why her text messages stated that she wasn’t really injured at all, and why she continually referred to the defendant as a libtard.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!
ATS
all you are doing is proving how biased and corrupt DC is.
J6’ers were locked in jail without trial for years and then tried in these same courts for LESS consequential acts.
Whether you like it or not – if you lay hands on a police office – you have committed assault.
That is the law.
I do not like that – but it is still the law. When we do not like the law, we change it.
All the DC courts are doing is proving they are corrupt and lawless.
And your sitting here laughing – but the Fact is that by failing to indict, or convict on a lessor charge you LOST, you did not win.
You proved to the majority of americans that you are for the rule of man, not the rule of law.
That when someone shows up accused in YOUR courts – which fortunately are NOT most of the country, But unfortunately ARE the places that YOU commit crimes, that the question will not be
Are you guilty ?
but
Are you republican or democrat?
John Say the Stupid
The only corruption in this case was by the DOJ.
A few facts.
Reid was accused of assaulting an FBI agent named Eugenia Bates.
The prosecution failed to turn over surveillance video, claiming that the camera malfunctioned. On the morning of the trial the video surveillance from the malfunctioning camera was mysteriously made available. The video showed that there was no physical contact between the defendant and FBI agent Bates. The prosecution acknowledged that there was no physical contact. They claim that the defendant Reid made jerk movement with her knee NEAR Bates’ groin which constituted simple assault.
So now, according to the Trump DOJ, you commit simple assault by making certain movements “NEAR” an officer without making physical contact.
This is laughably absurd and the jury reached a not guilty verdict within minutes.
Change the law to – due respect for LEOs.
So now, according to the Trump DOJ, you commit simple assault by making certain movements “NEAR” an officer without making physical contact.
Not according to the Trump DOJ. According to every authority on the law for the last 500 years or more. There is no jurisdiction in the common law WORLD where that is not simple assault. Including DC. Had the parties been reversed there is no question that the assailant would have been convicted. Her acquittal was outright lawlessness by the jury; they acquitted her for exactly the same reason that white juries in the South 75 years ago would acquit lynchers.
Is that you, “Cocaine ‘n Crack” Kid? Former First Felon Son?
If Sydney “Antifascist” Lori Reid had been white and in the Senate on January 6th, she wouldn’t have faced indictment – she would have just been summarily executed: shot dead on the spot in a Che Guevera type communist execution.
Ooooh racial gerrymandering — BAD.
(partisan gerrymandering — ok.)
All gerrymandering, no matter what electoral advantage sought, is corrupt as sin. Democracy is supposed to force candidates to compete based solely on giving the voters the power to decide policy options — that and competence and trustworthiness with the power vested in governing.
Any “clever” gaming of the system to gain competitive advantage should be outlawed. Both parties, the legal system, the education system, and the media are all committed to elitist rule, which gradually steals power to decide away from The People as voters, away from Juries to deliver binding verdicts, and away from people harmed by internet platforms to sue for damages.
SCOTUS is a joke when it comes to gerrymandering. Congress, too.
The way I look at it, The People have been out of power now for decades. It’s strictly a battle of the competing elites. We The People have no chance on issues where the elites are in agreement.
Gerrymandering is a tool, neither inherently good or bad.
It can be used to give representation to a small number who would be overshadowed by the majority which is a good thing, or it can be used to take representation from a significant minority and that is a bad thing.
With as little as 40% support of the overall population those in control of districting can create a majority representation that the 60% will be unable to override; it doesn’t mean 100% of the seats but more than 50%.
At the other end, a minimum size minority can be given a seat, proportional to the population distribution. Sorry, the naturalized citizen from Lesotho isn’t getting a separate seat in the US House dedicated to him, but a group that is 30%-40% should see just about 30%-40% of the seats.
The former is the typical goal of Republican Gerrymandering and the latter is the goal of Democratic Gerrymandering.
When the numbers are 60%-40% for those in control they can make it so the 40% has zero seats. Why it doesn’t happen is only because such manipulation would be too obvious. So maybe one seat is tossed as a scrap. This is what the Republicans are planning in multiple states – eliminate representation of anyone voting Democrat, locking in the power to ensure Democrats never get into office again.
“It can be used to give representation to a small number who would be overshadowed by the majority which is a good thing, or it can be used to take representation from a significant minority and that is a bad thing.”
Wrong. That BullSchiff concept of “good governance for all” doesn’t belong here – it’s a pollutant. A Democrat communist pollutant.
How do you slice up your “minority”? They’re black? Maybe they’re Democrats in an area that is increasingly voting Republican?
Or maybe if you just slice and dice and move lines around, you can move some Democrat votes from a district that is overwhelmingly Democrat and doesn’t need them, into another district that is just barely Republican.
Everybody gets a commie red star for showing up – it’s the Democrat Communist Way.
And of course: commie Democrat Gerrymandering is good, and Republican Gerrymandering is obviously racist.
Take a look at the percentage of Republican votes in the last election in states like California – then explain how those 40% of California votes who vote Republican have barely any seats in the House.
Trying to rig elections via Gerrymandering is a fool’s errand. People not only cast votes at the ballot box, but they also vote with their feet. One aspect of American culture is mobility. Americans move a lot compared to people in other countries. Something like 10-15% of the population moves every year.
Furthermore, places that are solidly “partisan” shift over time. 50-60 years ago CA was solidly Republican. Now its a Democrat stronghold. Texas used to be solidly Democrat. Now it’s a Republican stronghold.
It’s well documented there has been significant net migration out of Democrat states in the past few years.
The solution is to promote Constitutional policies people want to vote for, not rigging elections to benefit one party or one group identity.
“Trying to rig elections via Gerrymandering is a fool’s errand… 50-60 years ago CA was solidly Republican. Now its a Democrat stronghold.”
If so, looking at states like California that have almost eliminated Republican held seats, it’s one hell of an effective fools errand. In 2024, 39% voted Republican. Republicans hold 9 of California’s 54 House seats.
That’s 19% – about half of what it would be if the redistricting of California weren’t gerrymandering to eliminate Republican seats. What a great fool’s errand – for Democrats.
“It can be used to give representation to a small number who would be overshadowed by the majority which is a good thing, or it can be used to take representation from a significant minority and that is a bad thing. ”
That was the rationale for the 2 Senator per state allocation and the appointment of Senators. As a principle, it was gutted long ago. You only argue for it in your example as a ploy to gain partisan advantage to “your side”.
By race? A population of x race is a minority by race but is 20% democrat by race x and 20% republican by race x. What difference does it make in skewing votes by race or party?
A population is y race at 40% . All 40% are democrats by race y. What difference does it make in skewing votes by race y or party?
In both cases race x and race y have an added representative. The added rep in race y will produce a partisan rep. By race. Race y is white and republican. Is that okay or is it racism.
When it’s found that 2 variables produce both a race and partisan vote it’s canceled because the partisan portion is NOT a minority and doesn’t fit the law.
Evidence of gaming … in Calais the gerrymandered districts are black and Democrat. A Democrat rep was added. If you don’t object then we’ll proceed with white repubs. AND GERRYMANDER. White repubs are a minority in many districts throughout the US. Just bunch them up. Districts and States.
There are 2 maps.
^^ I’m for it because white Republicans can use it. I’m all for better ideas. ☺
ATS – so tell me exactly how you are going to construct congressional districts that 100% of people agree are fair and proper ?
What SCOTUS and congress need to do regarding gerrymandering is GET OUT OF IT.
Actual gerrymandering to maximize the number of seats a party holds is incredibly dangerous.
It ensures that a few percent change in voters will flip the largest possible number of seats.
It is also at odds with what the party leaders want.
The members of congress want safe seats. They want to get re-elected over and over.
Say a state is 51:49 D and D’s barely control the house and senate in that state, and they gerrymander the state so that they make every seat in the state D+2 and the next election the generic ballot in that state shifts 3pct – that flips every single seat in the state.
Or lets assume that while they try to get D+2 in every seat – but from year to year the candidates quality varies – as is normal. This means the odds of any Rep serving 4 consequtive terms is near zero.
People who like term limits would like that.
But politicians would hate it – nearly all of each party leadership is in Safe Seats,.
And these are the people who are going to decide how to setup the districts.
Some states have tried non-partisan commissions – these still ultminately work the same as having the reps do it themselves.
There is no such thing as fair in the world.
Your trying to pretend there is – and that is the problem.
Some of the most dangerous people in the world are those who beleive that there is a morally correct answer to a problem that is not a moral problem.
Adam Smith noted 2 and 1/2 centuries ago
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Or
“That government is best which governs least”
One of the problems with democracy – which is far less of a problem in more authoritarian forms of govenment is that there is far more fighting with power, and than when some group has it they must try to prove they deserve it – when doing NOTHING is nearly always the best.
Kavanaught is applying an arbitrary time limit on race considerations. The voting rights act and the constitution did not place any time limits as He seems to suggest. It is likely he is making an excuses to justify further erosion of the voting rights act so it would benefit Republicans in the mid-terms.
The Equal Protection clause is aimed at prohibiting governmental discrimination based on race. When an act of Congress expressly discriminates based on race, the only way for it to be deemed valid – i.e., to survive a court challenge – is if there is some compelling state interest that cannot be served any other way other than racial discrimination. Once that state interest dissipates, the validity of the racial-discrimination provision evaporates with it. It is possible that at one time in our history there was a compelling need for official racial discrimination, but that need goes away over time. That was the conceptual basis for Justice O’Connor predicting that affirmative action would not be needed after another 25 years (i.e., by 2028). See Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).
The problem – which is why S2 of the VRA is going down is that it is unconstitutional.
The constitution does not put time limits on unconstitutional laws because they simply are not allowed.
The reason time limits are discussed is because when the courts first took up the VRA essentially they concluded that parts of it were unconstitutional – but that was somehow OK for the small number of years congress expected at the time it would take to correct discrimination through more discrimination.
Justice Brown beautifully and stupidly pointed out the flaw in this.
Are minorities – and by that we mean Blacks because we do not pull this nonsense for hispanics or asians, disabled ?
While Justice Jackson’s argument raises the question of how is the ADA constitutional – it isn’t.
It also points out the flaw in the VRA – minorities are NOT disabled.
60 years is not enough time?
Any decision based on race is unconstitutional. The government lawyer made the best example. They wouldn’t add a Democrat district fir white people. That would be unconstitutional too.
OTOH, the Court did state (was it in Bollinger?) that race based preferences should not last forever, that it was reasonable to assume they would eventually come to an end.
It’s not limited to blacks. Whites can be a minority within a district triggering gerrymandering. Gerrymandering will produce spirals and disjointed districts until districts are no longer functional.
It’s already in California. Portions of towns and cities are broken into parts and included in districts 100s of miles away over hill and valley.
By the time every minority uses or games this system for partisan reasons just do away with the statute as dysfunctional and use percentage of population by State and district for immutable qualities – color of skin, believe it or not. The truth is partisan and skin color is the tool.
Just find a road into a pocket of whites and call it contiguous. It’ll be the only way remaining for majority. Get to it! All you white people in non white districts call for equal protection and gingles. Gavin jumped on it.
Overall it’s become election interference by compact, contiguous negligence. If something can be destroyed they’ll destroy it. That’s their motto. Wake up congress and sunset it now or not.
What a junkyard of crime. The weather is lovely and rain a pleasure.
Where does the Constitution say racism incorporated into the Voting Rights Act – which didn’t exist back then – must be permanent?
That sounds like a communist Democrat definition of both the Voting Rights Act as well as the Constitution.
Clearly, this district has been manufactured with intent and race is used. It’s unconstitutional.
These Beltway types live in a highly insular world. They toss around terms like “nonminority voter”.
In California one can see the future of America: every skin color is a minority. Black, white, brown, yellow, red, purple, they’re all minority voters. There’s just one kind of epidermis that nonminority voters have, that Justice Jackson said she doesn’t know what that is, and that’s that of a woman. Yes, women are the only nonminority demographic category and she doesn’t know what a woman is.
Ketanjive is illogic. She is disabled.
“Ketanjive is illogic. She is disabled.”
To judge her by her own analysis, she is disabled because she is black (and possibly because of her gender, once she figures out what that means).
Allow me to enter into evidence two items that incontrovertibly prove race-based remedies have gone too far: Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.
KBJ is in way over her head. Her questions border SNL. Sotomayor tries to come to her rescue. Smirk.
I happen to agree with KBJ when she says being black is a disability. The group has ruined their own good name.
^^^ the reverse is also true. Blacks are both partisan and racist. Party affiliation is a disability when it leads to block voting and in that way includes cockamami factions.
Add Kagan, women’s hire DEI.
OT, remember the July 4 ambush attack on ICE and police officers by 11 Antifa members in Texas, where one police officer was shot in the neck? DOJ has now obtained an indictment against two of the for supporting a terrorist organization. This is a first, but hopefully not a last. It should be a warning to people carrying out such evil attacks that the era of a slap on the wrist for terrorism is over. And since it’s Texas instead of DC or northern VA, the jury pool won’t be made up exclusively of leftists who support the terrorists.
Nor in Utah!
oldman,
They weren’t Antifa members in July. I wonder what changed. Oh, right, Trump and his bumbling DoJ has decided that anyone they don’t like is Antifa.
From the report, the group agreed to show up with fireworks. They did not agree that their leader would show up with a gun.
Considering the FBI handling of Ruby Ridge, I have doubts the FBI is entirely truthful about what they found and what they suspect. I note that the FBI added in that their leader is “cult-like” and claimed that some wore body-armor, though given the ease with which law enforcement pulls the trigger on protesters, that does not indicate to me that it was to mount an offense. More likely, though, is that it’s not body armor at all, but just a tactical vest with heavy nylon weave fabric.
The charge is ironic considering the number of people following Trump in his cult. Who is it who buys his Chinese made memorabilia anyway? Recall Trump watches? Not sourced from Swiss watch makers. Members of the cult forced their way past barriers, police, locked doors, and into the Capitol building and Trump pardoned them all, even though many officers were injured.
Anyway, since facts can matter, 17 were originally detained, 20 arrested, and 10 have indictments.
The incident was planned to use fireworks to distract ICE personnel while the group spray-painted their cars. It’s not clear that all the group members knew of the gun or guns. This is Texas, so possession of guns is expected. Imagine if, after getting a speeding ticket, the police raided the home of the speeder – I bet they find guns there.
Anyway, isn’t this what the 2nd amendment supporters suggest – the gun rights are required in the event an oppressive government is to be dealt with? Or is that just a fantasy that justifies keeping guns?
Anonymous – tell it to the judge, or perhaps the jury. They got two indictments, and all the factual disputes will be hashed out at trial. In the meantime, I distrust anything you say, so I’m not going to take your word for it. I might trust you a little more if you got yourself a screen name and stuck to it, and perhaps provided some evidence for your claims. But as an anonymous commenter who doesn’t provide evidence, anything you say is presumed to be a lie.
Actually ATS is so lacking in self awareness he failed to graps that his own Narative justified the indictments.
These “protestors” – came with the intent to commit violence – they brought fireworks and they wore body armor – it is only mildly relevant whether that was tacticle gear or bullet proof vests. ATS is likely correct – they ended up committing more violence than they intended.
But hundreds of years of law already address that. Once you plan to commit violence and take efirmative steps in that direction you are responsible for everything that ensues even if it exceeds what you intended.
“They weren’t Antifa members in July. ”
ROFL – false and irrelevant.
Who cares ? They assaulted law enforcement.
“I wonder what changed.”
We have an actual president not an incapacitated moron.
“From the report, the group agreed to show up with fireworks.”
No one showed up at J6 with fireworks,
With lasers
With frozen water bottles
with guns.
“They did not agree that their leader would show up with a gun.”
Does not actually matter. They did not agree to bring fireworks to celebrate the 4th of july.
They brought them specifically to disurb the peace and to disrupt law enforcement.
If you plan to bring baseball bats to a robbery – and one of your party brings a gun you are all guilty of armed robbery. If that person shoots and kills someone – you are all guilty of felony murder.
Once you plan lawlessness – you end up criminally responsible for everything that results,
even if that was NOT what you intended.
That is the law, and it has been that way for centuries.
“Considering the FBI handling of Ruby Ridge”
Ruby ridge was a LEFT WING NUT DOJ/FBI targeting the right. Conducting an Armed invasion of private property without a warrant and without any exigent circumstances.
“I have doubts the FBI is entirely truthful about what they found”
Got no problems with that – being skeptical of the claims of law enforcement is wise.
But some things we KNOW as FACTS. This was planned. It was NOT a peaceful or lawful protest.
Shots were fired and Law enforcement was nearly murdered.
“what they suspect.”
Not interested in speculation – not by the FBI, not by you.
“I note that the FBI added in that their leader is “cult-like””
So ? I have no problem with the FBI claiming that. But it is not relevant to a criminal prosecution.
Branch Davidians were likely a Cult – that was STILL an illegal action by the ATF and then FBI that resulted in nearly 100 dead.
“claimed that some wore body-armor”
These people were arrested.
Either they were wearing body armor or they were not.
There is no “claimed” about things that we have clear physical evidence of.
“though given the ease with which law enforcement pulls the trigger on protesters”
In what world ? We have had myriads of left wing nut acts of violence, Frankly the fact that more of these violent left wing nuts have not been killed is very surprising.
When you initiate violence against others – ESPECIALLY law enforcement – they have the right to defend themselves. In most circumstances they can use deadly force.
“More likely, though, is that it’s not body armor at all, but just a tactical vest with heavy nylon weave fabric.”, It is evidence of planned violence. The exact makeup does not matter.
Just like flourescent vests are evidence of being on a construction crew or of preparing to go hunting.
“The charge is ironic considering the number of people following Trump in his cult.”
There is no crime of being in a cult.
Assaulting a police officer, attempted murder are crimes.
“Who is it who buys his Chinese made memorabilia anyway?”
Is it your money ? Why do you care what others do with their money ?
Why is it your business ?
Why do you think you are entitled to a voice in the peaceful actions of others ?
“Recall Trump watches? Not sourced from Swiss watch makers.”
Only democrat billionairs can afford swiss watches.
“Members of the cult forced their way past barriers”
For the most part the barriers were removed before they arrived.
For those few who actually broke the law – had they been properly charged with the actual crimes they commited – and given fair trials most of us would be joining in condemning them.
But the rule of law requires democrats new favorite words – due process, whther you are a Trump supporter or an illegal alien.
“police”
Outside of the west tunnel entrance – where the CP started the mess by tear gassing themselves and then tear gassing a peaceful crowd, there was little violence against police – there are over 100,000 hours of video that are 99.99% peaceful. That have CP officers practically conducting guided tours.
“locked doors”
They did ? Where ? Again – almost entirely the barriers had been previously removed and the capital doors were opened from the inside.
I would further note – this is the US capital the preeminent free speech forum in the world.
You CAN NOT lock protestors out while congress is in session.
The first amendment does NOT allow you to loot target in protest against government. It does not allow you to burn walmart in protest against government.
If you are going to protest – do so where your voice can be heard by those that can do someothing about what you are protesting for.
“even though many officers were injured.”
Not all that many – and several committed perjury claiming to be injured – again one of the reasons that they fought so hard to keep from releasing the video.
“Anyway, since facts can matter, 17 were originally detained, 20 arrested, and 10 have indictments.”
So ? The strenght of the case may not be equal for each.
“The incident was planned to use fireworks to distract ICE personnel while the group spray-painted their cars. ”
In other words the group planned to commit violent crimes.
“It’s not clear that all the group members knew of the gun or guns. ”
Not relevant. If you plan to commit violence – and others part of your group act MORE violently than you planned – your still stuck being criminally responsible.
If someone is killed during a robbery – everyone who participated in the robbery is guilty of felony murder.
“This is Texas, so possession of guns is expected. ”
True and not the issue. This is not about posession of a gun – though I would recomend that anyone right or left NOT take firearms of weapons to protests.
I would recomend that hose organizing protests make it CLEAR that weapons are NOT to be brought and violence not to be tolerated. If you have make it CLEAR that you are ONLY going to take legal action – and launching fireworks at police is NOT legal action. Then you are not as a group culpable for the criminal acts of individuals. But the moment you plan SOME criminal acts – if things get out of hand – your all responsible even if you did not intend that.
“Imagine if, after getting a speeding ticket, the police raided the home of the speeder – I bet they find guns there.”
Possibly, but not relevant. This is not about posessing guns, it is not about using guns in self defence. It is about planning violence and then having the violence get further out of hand than you intended. It is not important precisely how the officer got nearly fatally injured – only THAT he got nearly fatally injured.
“Anyway, isn’t this what the 2nd amendment supporters suggest – the gun rights are required in the event an oppressive government is to be dealt with? Or is that just a fantasy that justifies keeping guns?”
The declaration of independence asserts that Violence in response to govenrment that is destructive of your rights is permissible – but only after all other efforts have failed and only after long suffering.
Violence against govnerment is criminal if there are no actual rights being violated.
ICE raids enforce existing laws and do not violate anyones rights anymore than arresting bank robbers.
“They weren’t Antifa members in July.” Yes they were. Are you cosplaying as actually being there with them, knowing them personally and knowing who they hang out with?
“The incident was planned to use fireworks to distract ICE personnel while the group spray-painted their cars.” That’s a lie: the plan was to lure them out to respond and then murder them with gunfire. Again, are you cosplaying you were there and can confidently state they didn’t discuss the plan with each other?
Of course, you also claim that because you claimed to be Trans, that wedding tackle you want to put on display in little girls’ changerooms doesn’t mean anything because you’re actually a woman.
“They weren’t Antifa members in July. I wonder what changed. “
Your month might be a tad off, but you are way off as far as the year. Antifa began in the US sometime in the 1980s.
OldManFromKS,
Well said!! Like to see the others flip for a lighter sentence and see if they can start to penetrate into the dark money aspect of the antifa domestic terrorist group.
It’s tax money laundered via campaigns, colleges, usaid, California high speed rail, etc. In the trillions!
DOJ has now obtained an indictment against two of the for supporting a terrorist organization.
How is that possible? There is no such crime as “supporting a terrorist organization”.
There is a crime called “giving material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization“, but Antifa is not such an organization, and can’t be made one because it isn’t foreign. And there is no corresponding designation for domestic organizations. Trump’s press release calling Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was pure bullcrap, of no legal effect whatsoever. So if they’ve really indicted people for that, then the indictment will and must be thrown out immediately.
Bwahaha now that one order more of the justices has stated that to be born black, is to be born disabled…. we understand what Barry Soetoro and Mandandi mean when theg scream, You didn’t build that.
Very interesting recent interview with Justice Coney Barrett.
In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Barrett was first asked about the extent of the president’s power over the government that has been a central tenet of Trump’s second term as his inner circle has pushed the so-called “unitary executive theory” that slots him above the legislative and judicial branches of government.
She tried to give a wishy-washy non-answer. She said, “It would imply strong presidential power over executive agencies. There has been a lot of debate and some new originalist scholarship debating right now whether indeed it has sound originalist credentials. But yes, it is one that has traditionally been associated with originalists.”
She was then specifically asked what SCOTUS would do if Trump defied one of their orders.
She tried to give another wishy-washy non-answer.
Unsatisfied with the lack of clarity in her answer, Douthat pressed, “OK, let me try that again: If a president defied the Supreme Court, what would you do?”
Coney Barrett then admitted that the court’s hands would largely be tied because there is a limited enforcement mechanism at its disposal.
So there we have it.
Barrett is sending a clear signal to Trump that he can do whatever he wants and SCOTUS will not try to stop him.
The 250 year American Experiment is officially over.
We can now look forward to a completely totalitarian dictatorship.
RIGHT………………………..
So why hasn’t he?????
Because it is very early days, idiot.
SCOTUS has yet to make a significant ruling against him, but that will eventually happen.
Barrett is signaling that they will do nothing if he defies them.
LOL…. Tried and failed again.
Nice try
____________________
Barrett is signaling that they will do nothing if he defies them.
Opinion only…. yours
“Opinion only…. yours”
Opinion of a very large number of people. The Supreme Court signaled a desire to overturn Roe V. Wade.
They have laid out the strategy for the Trump administration to take to ignore stare decisis and rule in Trump’s favor. This is the most blatant open-door effort so far.
What issue of Stare Decisis is it that Trump and MAGA are desparate to overturn ?
Regardless, you seem to think Stare Decisis is the inerrant word of god.
Should Dredd Scott never have been overruled ?
Rowe was a mistake from its inception.
It established Arbitrary time frames with no legal or constitutional foundation.
Casey attempted to fix Rowe by concocting a scientific foundation – for the most part science has no place in law. Science can not tell us what is right and what is wrong.
Regardless MOST of the lower court decisions headed to the supreme court that Trump administration wants overruled are instances where the LOWER courts ignored the law and prior judicial precident and concocted the outcome they want from thin air.
Trump is not overturning the lawful and constitutional order he is mostly restoring it.
He is likely to los on one or two issues.
Issues where he – not the left, not lower court judges are challenging the established order.
Barrett is correct – but there is not another answer.
There is nothing that the courts can do to enforce their edicts.
The courts are obeyed for the same reason that the president is obeyed
Because we beleive in the rule of law.
There are 9 justices on the court and Barrett does not speak for the other 8 or even what could be done in an off the record interview. Your speculation that SCOTUS will do nothing to enforce their rulings is pure political speak. If the court rules and Trump does not follow its orders, like many liberal District Judges are doing around the country, is when SCOTUS will decide how to proceed and enforcement steps to take.
The Trump administration has not disobeyed a single court ruling.
Nor are they going to.
Though several courts have tried to play the game that the administration violated a ruling by acting in ways they judges did not like BEFORE the judges ruled.
Trump has done what he wants.
Trump is beholden to the Project 2025 cabal. They don’t want a smoking crater of a country; they want a crippled government with no regulatory capacity and a national defense paid for solely by the middle and lower class. Project 2025 is a plan to sell America the the Billionaires for peanuts, to extract anything they can and sell it at fire-sale prices to maximize the profit over the shortest term possible.
The normal route is for Congress to back up the Supreme Court and impeach Trump, but the republicans won’t do it, so the Supreme Court is now just a rubber stamp for Project 2025. Unless the Federalist Society starts assassinating Heritage Foundation member, that’s the way it will go.
“Trump has done what he wants.
Trump is beholden to the Project 2025 cabal.”
Which is it ?
“They don’t want a smoking crater of a country;”
Correct.
” they want a crippled government with no regulatory capacity”
Correct, please check out Coases Law – that is a fundimental law of economics.
The greater freedom there is to bargain – short of proscriptions against the use of force,
bargaining in a free market will always produce better outcomes than govenrment regulation.
“a national defense paid for solely by the middle and lower class.”
That is always the case.
” Project 2025 is a plan to sell America the the Billionaires for peanuts,”
Sorros ? you do understand that probably 90% of billionaires are left wing nuts ?
“to extract anything they can and sell it at fire-sale prices to maximize the profit over the shortest term possible.”
Absolutely no billionaire wants that or would want that.
Only a moron would pose such an ignorant claim.
Literally the distinction between those who become wealthy and those who do not is their ability to place long term gains over short term ones.
“The normal route is for Congress to back up the Supreme Court and impeach Trump,”
Normal route for What ? You have already impeached Trump twice for having done nothing.
If you regain the house – everyone knows your first order of business will be to impeach Trump for nothing again.
Regardless – in this hypothetical where Trump defies the supreme court, why exactly is anyone going listen to him ? The importance of the courts – particularly the supreme court is their decisions create legitimacy. That is pretty literally all the courts exist for.
If Trump defies the supreme court – why will anyone in the executive branch listen to him ?
Yes, the country under Trump is making SLOW progress towards restoring the rule of law.
“Trump has done what he wants.”
Wrong president. It was The Oval Office House Plant who kept ignoring SCOTUS rulings i.e. his unconstitutional attempts to move student loan debt off the borrowers shoulders on to those of the taxpayers in hopes of buying student votes.
But you, to nobody’s surprise, have forgotten that. And why you tortured so many electrons claiming President AutoPen had a right to ignore and defy SCOTUS rulings.
Andrew Jackson basically defied the SCOTUS and proceeded with the Indian Removal Act but the republic survived.
FDR basically broke the constitution when he imprisoned Japanese American citizens during WW2 and SCOTUS backed him up but we survived.
I think we already have people claiming that and we have Biden suppressing speech and Obama basically trying to institute a coup. Now where would we want to draw this line about defying the constitution?
And Biden defied the Court when he “figured out” (his term) how to “cancel” college student loan debt and hoist that liability onto the American taxpayer in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling against doing so.
GEB,
“We” survived, but a large number of people suffered and died. Did you notice that Germany survived WWII? Does that justify opening the death camps again?
Both previous examples were awful; why use them as justification to do more awful things now?
“Both previous examples were awful; why use them as justification to do more awful things now?”
You were celebrating and supporting them then – not calling them “awful”. And now, magically, you proclaim that putting an end to race based Democrat vote hustling and racism would similarly be a terrible thing that you didn’t think was aweful at the time Biden was doing it.
You do a better job of cosplaying that you’re female.
“Now where would we want to draw this line about defying the constitution?”
What is it that those on the left actually expect that Trump is going to do that defy’s the constitution ?
He is busy ENFORCING the law – that is what has the left pissed.
No…she was (a) clearly trying to avoid answering pointed questions concerning matters that may come before the court, since that might raise ethical concerns, and (b) merely rearticulating Hamilton’s note that under our constitution’s separation of powers, the judiciary’s power was neither the power of the purse (that belonged to Congress), or the power of enforcement (that belonged to the President), but only the power of judgment…which in the end depends on the Executive to enforce any judgment rendered, thereby placing an effective check on any abuse of power by the Judiciary. It’s been that way for 250 years (though lately, the Judiciary has been overstepping its proper authority in many ways, which the current Supreme Court appears trying to restrain), and will remain so. And no amount of gaslighting will see Trump, or any other politician, convert America into a “totalitarian dictatorship.”
The 250 year American Experiment is officially over.
Over the interview comments of one Scotus Justice? Can’t you at least try not to sound hysterical?
“The 250 year American Experiment is officially over.
We can now look forward to a completely totalitarian dictatorship.”
Let’s all laugh at the same time. Biden took a hammer to the Constitution, and we are still here. So far, Trump hasn’t abused his power in a significant way that other Presidents have done in the past. Trump has not refused Supreme Court decisions. He is aggressive but stays within the boundaries of lawful action.
His counterbalance is not the Supreme Court but Congress. If you have a problem, take it up with Hakeem Jeffries and Charlie Schumer. The first one is clueless, and the second is worried about his job.
Rabble:
Meyer, I find videos greatly help accentuate the memery of statements. In this case, I provide the following:
“Let’s all laugh at the same time.”
ATS – the question was stupid – as I beleive Eisenhower pointed out 75 years ago – the supreme court has no army.
Both the judicial and legislative branches depend on the voluntary compliance of the executive AND the executives willingness to enforce their edicts.
That is nothing new. It was true in Washingtons day and presidents other that Eisenhower noted the inability of the courts to enforce their edicts.
What compels presidents to obey the courts and the laws is the same thing that compels the members of the executive to obey the president.
Most likely true. Something on the order of Maduro. Learn Spanish. Wonder what the Mexicans will do with moslems or even blacks. I imagine States will run themselves in some sad way. Israel will be done without the US. Putin will take Europe. India will continue in poverty and Africa too. Nothing new there.
Adios… as I am a believer in God and he has many mansions I won’t be seeing you again. The US is a wonderful nation with a few rough spots but not for us.
Adios
” Putin will take Europe.”
Putin evidently wants to reclaim jurisdiction over those parts of Europe that were traditionally part of the Russian Empire. I very much doubt that he wants to be responsible for places like the open sewer that Britain has made of itself, or the political snake pit that France has been forever.
That’s quite a change! Not too long ago you were gloating and saying that Barrett just wrote that President AutoPen had every right to outsource his censorship and crushing of Republican First Amendment Rights to social media and other online entities who could deplatform elected Republican politicians.
” The 250 year American Experiment is officially over.” You commies haven’t won yet. You tried in the Confederate Slavery Civil War and then again in the Obama/Biden Cultural Marxism war. But you still haven’t won yet.
“We can now look forward to a completely totalitarian dictatorship.” You made that claim in 2016 when your Russia Dossier police state fascism totalitarian insurrection seemed poised to succeed.
You miss the simple point that our government is supposed to be formed by three branches. The Supreme Court has nine justices, no army, and relies on the perception of its fairness for everyone to follow its rulings. If a President ignores a ruling, the Supreme Court doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism.
That said, the legislature does have an enforcement mechanism, called impeachment.
It’s funny that the left keeps accusing Trump of refusing to follow a Supreme Court decision, which he has given no indication of doing, when Biden did, when he kept trying to implement student loan forgiveness contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court. Project much?
Funnny how briben bitler defied the court on college loan fraud and nothing was done by the supreme court. Shoe is on the other foot now huh.
If the SCOTUS takes Section 2 away they should go all the way and eliminate Districts entirely. States get the number of congress people that their population enables them.
The system is, and has-been, fatally flawed. It’s been unable to resist toxic gerrymandering. Estimates of the effects of taking Section 2 drastically favors R’s in the South by 16-19 added seats. Add that to gettymandering in other R states ordered by the trump administration and it becomes almost functionally impossible for D’s to win the House..and D’s are numerically in the majority.
. . . go all the way and eliminate Districts entirely
Wouldn’t that have to be done by Congress, under the Elections Clause – US Const. art. I, Section 4 (“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”)?
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Election Clause are of the same nature in my book.
the VRA S2 is an unconstitutional law.
The election cause is part of the actual constitution.
*. Isn’t this an attem9t to establish a 2nd black majority district that isn’t compact?
Btw, I listen for entertainment only. Gavin Newsom is attempting to create new districts.. .
Anonymous 1:00 PM-Sort of like when the D’s controlled the House from 1932-1994 except for 4 years.
Yeah they sucked hard then. Not quite as much as now. But still full on suck factory.
GEB, they ran the House during the best expansion of the US economy and you are complaining about that?
As far as I can tell the creation of voting districts within states is entirely up to the states. The main function is to provide districts to supply legislators to the state legislation. The secondary is to provide representatives to the US Congress. For the latter, there could be state-wide votes, but that becomes complicated as there may be many running for US Congressional office and no clear way to say who should win. Is it 1 vote per person per Rep, in which case the result might be 99% of the votes go to someone popular and the next one in line with a tiny fraction of 1 percent? Is it ranked choice? No state seems to want that. Even the electors aren’t driven by district.
A society of laws must strictly adhere to its laws.
FACTS:
Secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional in 1860. Everything Lincoln did subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of secession was similarly unconstitutional, including but not limited to the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx. Additionally, U.S. immigration law on January 1, 1863, denied freed slaves admission to become citizens, requiring their compassionate repatriation on that date.
Anonymous 12:45 PM – Our Revolution was illegal according to British Law but we won and they signed the peace treaty. The Confederacy lost and signed the articles of surrender and were only readmitted to the Union as the passed certain laws and constitutional amendments so they accepted de Facto and de Jure that succession was illegal.
I would contest that succession is illegal.
We do not permit a bank robber to return the stolen money in order to gain exoneration after the fact.
In 1860, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and was fully constitutional—read the 10th Amendment.
“Crazy Abe” invaded a sovereign foreign nation by not withdrawing military forces and imposed martial law.
Every subsequent act of Lincoln was similarly illicit and unconstitutional and must be rescinded.
The imaginary federal constitutional right to abortion was a fraud perpetrated on America and was rescinded retroactively by 50 years.
In a society of laws, the laws must be adhered to.
“In 1860, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and was fully constitutional—read the 10th Amendment. “Crazy Abe” invaded a sovereign foreign nation by not withdrawing military forces and imposed martial law. ”
Confederate Kluxxer GeorgeX hopes normal Americans forget that the Confederate insurrection fired the first shots on American ships at sea – LONG before they opened fire on long established American garrisons at Fort Sumpter. GeorgeX’s tired old Confederate racist commie lie.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist Kluxxer dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and the Confederate Democrat Civil War (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that George has proved his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned. For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
“Secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional in 1860. ” GeorgeX’s tired old Confederate racist commie lie; the icing on the cake is GeorgeX claiming that Lincoln and Mark were Kluxxer brothers by different mothers.
Not to mention his drivel that you can “repatriate” Americans born on American soil and having never left American soil to some foreign country they have never seen. BUT… only AFTER you’ve lost the Kluxxer Insurrection Slaver War. Up until then GeorgeX’s Kluxxer slave traders had no intentions of “repatriating” their valuable property to some foreign country because of US Immigration law they had decided they didn’t recognize to begin with.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist wet dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and the Confederate Democrat Civil War (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that George has proved his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned. For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
The best solution out of this is to eliminate districts and go to proportional representation. Primaries set the order of candidates on the party list, and general elections choose how many of each party gets elected.
+100
Quotas. Yeah, let’s do quotas.
If Jackson’s evidence were there, what is the reason blacks are overly represented in congress?
To be fair the disability of the black voter is they can’t get into the big house- the House of Representatives. Unfortunately there’s no evidence for that argument.
I was under the impression.that ghettos were made illegal when the Court abolished restrictive real estate covenants as to race, religion, ethnicity, etc. African-Americans are not locked into their homes at night – so, this “Black District” is a crazy idea.
*. Pass a law in Louisiana that excludes everyone except blacks from elected offices. Problem solved.
Incredible hatred. There’s nothing that can be done. I wish all a better reincarnation than this one. 😂
Thanks, PT! BTW, at scotus.gov kick back with your fave beverage and listen to the oral arguments. Print outs available. Lovely weather we’re having.
Oh yeah, we’d we all just love the Alaska Shyte Show that put Lisa Murkowski back in a senate seat after the Republicans tossed her out on her ass.
Do some California primaries were the two with the highest vote totals run against each other in the election despite the party they identify with, and those below them in the proportional representation are left at the door.
Might be some Americans stupid enough to think that’s a solution!