Below is my column in The Hill on a pesky problem facing California Democrats: their recent gerrymandering effort may have a racial discrimination problem. According to Ninth Circuit judge Kenneth Lee, the problem is District 13 and the public comments of the primary mapmaker, who declared his intention to create a Latino-dominated district.
Here is the column:
Democrats are bullish about retaking the House of Representatives and making Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) the next Speaker after the midterm elections. Part of that optimism is the cushion of five seats created through further gerrymandering of California’s U.S. House districts.
According to one respected Ninth Circuit judge, however, California may have a slight problem: Its new congressional map may be based on racial discrimination.
Judge Kenneth Lee this week dissented from a decision upholding the districts, and his detailed dissent could lay the foundation for a serious challenge that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. At issue is Congressional District 13, in the Central Valley, which Lee reveals was the result of openly racial criteria by the principal architect of the new districts.
Lee begins his dissent by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2006 decision, stating, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” When it comes to gerrymandering, it is all a sordid business of course — but this sordid business may be unconstitutional.
The court has accepted that gerrymandering is part of politics. Majority parties, like Democrats in California and Republicans in Texas, have openly redesigned districts, sometimes into absurd shapes, to achieve political ends.
One of the vehicles long used to help boost Democratic seats is the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits districts that discriminate against racial minorities. But this law has long been challenged as itself a statutory mandate for racial discrimination.
We are currently awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in barring any district that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
The result of the law has been decades of protracted litigation over the design of districts to effectively guarantee minority — overwhelmingly Democratic — representation in Congress. That is viewed by many as flying in the face of the guarantee of the 14th Amendment barring the use of race to discriminate between citizens. As Chief Justice Roberts famously wrote in 2007, “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Once again, partisan gerrymandering is constitutional. Indeed, last December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to keep its redrawn maps. In Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, the Supreme Court observed that “Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” In his concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch), called it “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
Judge Lee (a Trump appointee) is now saying that it was not that “pure and simple” with regard to at least California’s District 13. He focused on the work of Paul Mitchell, whom he described as “a California redistricting expert paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, House Majority PAC, and the DCCC to draw a redistricting map for California.”
“Race-based interest groups,” Lee noted, “wanted certain racial outcomes out of the process. He happily delivered.” Mitchell is quoted as openly embracing race as the critical element in his design, including publicly declaring that the “number one thing that I started thinking about” was creating a “Latino majority/minority district” in Los Angeles.
Judge Lee notes that the stated intent to create a Latino-controlled district ignores that this is already one of the most powerful and well-represented racial groups in California: “Latinos do not just make up the largest racial/ethnic group in the state … [but also hold] significant sway among California’s Democratic elected officials and leaders.”
Nevertheless, the plan was upheld by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton (an Obama appointee) and U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu (a Biden appointee). In fairness to the panel, there were respected key witnesses, including redistricting experts Dr. Bernard Grofman and Dr. Jonathan Rodden of the Hoover Institution, who rejected race as the key criterion. They helped create a record to support redistricting driven by political motives. The majority also stressed that there is a presumption of good faith in such plans.
This is where it gets particularly interesting. Lee notes that, while there is a presumption, it is not absolute. It became unsupportable, he argued, when Mitchell refused to answer questions about his motivations and assurances. “Mitchell went to great lengths to avoid testifying under oath about how he drew the California map — even though he publicly talked about it to the press and interest groups before this lawsuit.”
In such a circumstance, Lee insists, the court should “take Mitchell’s statements at face value and conclude they reflect his true motivations behind the Proposition 50 map. We have nothing else to go on.”
That sets up an interesting scenario. If the Supreme Court rules against the use of race in districting under the Voting Rights Act, the opinion could have blowback on gerrymandering cases that rely on the same criterion. The Roberts court has drawn a bright line against the use of race to discriminate in various areas, including college admissions.
Moreover, the court (and particularly its three liberal justices) has stressed that one cannot ignore legislative comments on such intent. Just this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back on the claims of neutral intent of Idaho legislators in requiring student athletes to play on teams associated with their biological sex. Although the state argued that the record did not show anti-transgender intent, Sotomayor insisted that the record had to be considered and “there’s certainly a lot of comments” that could be weighed on the question.
While the panel wrote an equally detailed case in favor of the districting as politically (not racially) motivated, there remains the glaring incongruity of sheltering the key figure and his public statements that embrace a race-based motivation for District 13. That could prompt some to send the plan back with the rapidly approaching midterm elections at stake.
The question is whether a court can simply ignore the stated intentions of the map-maker in determining the purpose of the map. At some point, Judge Lee suggests, an assumption of good faith becomes a willful blindness to racial discrimination.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” It will be released on Feb. 3 for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Mr Turley, when the DEMs want something… they are a solid unit, they vote together and they stay together. If Jefferies wants CA to redistrict it will stay the way it has been redrawn… we all live by the rules unless you’re a DEM… sadly that is what the NEW DEMS have become… openly defying and getting it.
If Dems voted together, President Hillary Clinton would have completed her second term in 2024. Instead they waffled and protested that Bernie Sanders, polling at only 10% of where Hillary was, should have been the nominee. Republicans vote party; Democrats vote policy. Since there is more than one policy, Democrats are often fractured.
It’s just another step in the plan. Apportionment is based on the number of residents including those in the state who are there illegally. California has a large unauthorized immigrant population, with estimates around 2.25 to 2.6 million in recent years (2023-2024), making it the state with the highest number.
They hide behind mercy for the poor when their real motivation has been all about increasing their own fortunes in Washington D.C. Meanwhile the California residents get to pay for it.
While exact percentages for illegal immigrants are scarce and data often covers all immigrants, studies show a significant portion of immigrant-headed households use benefits, with one 2023 estimate suggesting around 59% of households are on at least one major welfare program. Please hit me again master.
Immigrants also do not participate in the census and are vastly under-counted to avoid being picked off by ICE.
If you cannot link to a study, then that study is not in evidence, and should not be mentioned as the basis for an argument. Think it through before posting more fake news.
Historically, I believe that race is distinct from ethnicity. That may matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which now considers meaning at the time of adoption of a constitutional or statutory provision when it interprets a provision. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not mention race or ethnicity. Early cases involving Equal Protection (Slaughterhouse; Plessy) mention race (e.g., white and black) but not ethnicity. I believe that “Latino” or “Hispanic” people can be members of any race. So, it may be difficult to invalidate California’s gerrymandering by citing discrimination on the basis of ethnicity.
Historically, I believe that race is distinct from ethnicity.
On the contrary, in the 19th century “race” was a lot closer to ethnicity than it is today. That was when people spoke of “the American race”, or “the English race”, or “the Jewish race”.
And There it is Jonathan. The devious machinations of today’s epoch at work (You have argued the proof) , “the political-industrial complex of both parties is ripping this country apart” -MTG
When the Nation is segregated and quantized by any measure of proclivity, they have then Divided & Conquered the People successfully, vesting control into the hands of a few whom have their way with it.
“partisan gerrymandering” [gerrymandering] is the machination of control in one way or another, but control overall none the less.
What Say Ye Jonathan Turley: Is this a Democracy?
. Government is too large, huge. The population of “America” distinguished from the United States is unbearably plagued by stupidity, ignorance, self interest, and valuelessness.
An interstate road is about ALL people in the United States and Government business is in frugally building it and maintaining it in excellent condition. I mention frugality because it’s a virtue and virtue is absent in America.
Then there’s the abuse of the United States interstate roads by those drunks speeding at 120 mph, truckers with fraudulent licenses, automobiles trafficking contraband and when stopped by State patrols shoot, run down, abuse those LEOs. People in United States don’t have that in common but you have your individual rights which really aren’t about what all people hold in common.
It’s disgusting, PT. Gerrymandering isn’t necessary if the population understood the limits of government. It’s unbearable. Mamdani has committed 4 million dollars to bathrooms? By California standards that’ll buy one port-a-potty.
Adieu
. Appeal to heaven, nope, the Hispanic or Latin group is designated by language and not ethnic nor race distinctions. If English is the only language a person speaks then they’re white? That’s your logic , ATH.
I don’t know what to say anymore. CA, MN, NYC, VA – look no further for what would await us all if dems ever have power again, and this time they would ensure it could never be reversed – they came damn close from 2020-25. We really are in a fight for freedom and for the soul of this nation.
Red and purple states really need to wise up, and fast. The dems have no scruples or ethics, and they are happy to ignore or delay the application of law until they are in a position to change it.
“The dems have no scruples or ethics” ICE under which administration is invading houses, schools, killed a woman in her car.
No ethics or scruples? Yep, that would describe trump very accurately. Oh wait, he did say the limits on his power were his own morals. But since he doesn’t have any (cheated on every single wife, buried an ex wife in his golf course), we’re screwed.
“ICE under which administration is invading houses, schools, killed a woman in her car.”
All of them. Obama’s per year deportations were just barely under half what Trump is currently managing.
While it did not make as much news, those deportations were all carried out in the same way.
By Law enforcement going to the places where illegal immigrants were to be found and often forcibly removing them.
AGAIN Government is FORCE. If you do not want FORCE to be used – then do not pass laws.
We have through government passed laws regarding immigration,
As a nation government must enforce those laws, or do not have the rule of law – we have anarchy.
We have some version of what we are seeing in Minneapolis – Angry mobs deciding for all of us
Renee Good was not simply a woman killed in her car.
She was someone who disagreed with immigration law and its enforcement and gambled her life to oppose it and lost.
Those on the left see her as John Brown. Many of the rest of us see her as Luigi Mangione.
Aside from scale one other difference between ICE under Trump and under Obama is focus.
While all those being forcibly deported are not convicted or alleged criminals – the majority are.
Those who are not criminals are typically picked up during the efforts to arrest a criminal.
Further they are given the choice of $3000 to self deport preserving the opportunity to try to legally immigrate to the US in the future or drawn out forced deportation and no chance of ever legally returning.
There is video – that of course will not get play on the MSM of an ICE officer telling the woman trying to block him that the person he is seeking to arrest is a convicted pedophile.
“ While it did not make as much news, those deportations were all carried out in the same way.”
It did not make as much news because Obama’s ICE was solely focused on real criminal and violent illegal immigrants and not the random stopping of anyone who looks foreign or speaks with an accent. Obama would have never allowed the violent apprehensions and the poor vetting process of agents the current ICE has.
The Deportations were NOT carried out the same way. Obama’s ICE, DHS, and Border patrols were not engaged in outright lying to judges, the public and apprehending immigrants who were lawfully attending immigration appointments and green card interviews. Trump’s ICE is getting much more attention because it’s poorly trained agents, and incompetent heads and secretaries are making it worse for themselves when the overly aggressive tactics, and violence are angering people. Let’s not forget that ICE is hiring for more Proud Boys, 3 percenters, and other questionable individuals who have been accused of abuses and violence. ICE is hiring with little vetting and training.
“ While all those being forcibly deported are not convicted or alleged criminals – the majority are.”
Wrong. What they constitute criminality can be as lowly as a traffic ticket or a parking violation.
“ Renee Good was not simply a woman killed in her car.
She was someone who disagreed with immigration law and its enforcement and gambled her life to oppose it and lost.
Those on the left see her as John Brown. Many of the rest of us see her as Luigi Mangione.”
Renee Good, was not doing anything wrong. The Trump administration along with those on the right sought to immediately gaslight her instead of blaming the agents who were escalating the situation as they always do. They are trained to escalate these kind of situations to justify more aggressive tactics and use deadly force. There is evidence that the tactic of standing in front of a vehicle to prevent it from leaving is against standing policy. It did not matter whether Good was partially parked and other cars were able to leave. Ross shot her out of anger, not “self defense”. The last two shots were completely unjustified and any court will note that.
“It did not make as much news because Obama’s ICE was solely focused on real criminal and violent illegal immigrants and not the random stopping of anyone who looks foreign or speaks with an accent. Obama would have never allowed the violent apprehensions and the poor vetting process of agents the current ICE has.”
ROFL
Wrong on EVERY point.
A far larger portion of the illegal immigrants deported by Trump are criminals or alleged criminals.
The Data is available on DHS’s web site. Further the data is not just agregate data – what percent were convicted criminals.
But specifically who was deported and what were they convicted of.
About 42% of ICE arrests are for criminals CONVICTED in the US or another country of crimes.
more than 50% of the remainder are people charged with crimes in the US but not yet convicted.
This is far larger percentages than under Obama.
Of course there are reasons that Trump is deporting far more criminals.
That is that despite a relatively porous border under Obama the overall makeup of illegal immigrants at that time included significantly less criminals.
Biden was allowing throughly unvetted mass immigration and that resulted in much larger numbers of criminals.
It is unlikely that following current ICE policies, ICE will get to deporting more people who are not criminals than criminals before Trump’s term ends.
I would further note we are seeing a dramatic drop in crime as well as a massive drop in Fentanyl overdoses.
This is directly the result of Trump’s border and immigration policies.
Next – Under Obama ICE conducted LOTS of mass SWEEPS – he sent large numbers of ICE agents to businesses know to employ illegals and rounded them all up and deported any that could not prove citizenship.
Trump did a very small amount of that with Farms in CA, but appears to mostly have abandoned Obama’s primary means of rounding up illegals. A method that all but the brian dead would realize catches very few criminals.
Next – Under Trump the overwhelming majority of arrests are persuant to WARRANTS.
While a deportation warrant does not meet the same legal standards as a criminal search warrant – just as the requirements for a traffic stop are not the same as for a drug raid, it is still an actual warrant and it is issued for a specific person.
In the recent shooting in Mineapolis. ICE went to the appartment of a SPECIFIC illegal alien with a WARRANT, he was arrested, and then his roommates grabbed snow shovels and went out and started beating on the ICE agent. The Agent who was severaly injured shot the criminal illegal being arrested int he leg, other agents came and arrested the =two room mates who turned out to ALSO be illegal immigrants – though without criminal records. Had they left well enough alone – they would not have been deported.
There are also a fairly large number of illegals that get arrested and deported when they cross the line from peaceful protests to violence. They are arrested for interfering – but quite often it turns out they are illegal immigrants and end up getting deported.
Biden BTW made all this easy – by persuading illegal immigrants to register using a phone app. As a result ICE has a database of a significant portion of the illegals in the US.
Regardless – even if you did NOT know the above – you would KNOW that ICE is conducting TARGETED RAIDS.
The leave ICE fascilities in convoy and they proceed to a specific destination where they are seeking SPECIFIC individuals.
That is OBVIOUS from even the video from the left wing nut media.
ICE is not “sweeping” through Downtown Minneapolis asking for ID or just dragging away brown people.
The courts long ago established that LEOs can REQUIRE ID if you are in a vehicle. They can ask but not require if you are on the street.
They can also ask if they have sufficient cause to detain you – such as if you obstruct them.
If you have watched the videos you will note that ICE is asking people who are interfering with them for ID, if they do not provide it,
they ask them to sit in an ICE SUV where they are able to identify them quickly.
I am not sure how that is done – but my guess is they are using facial ID software against the Database off photos that Biden got illegals to register on. Alternately through Real-ID they have access to state drivers license photos.
Regardless they are able to ID people in their vehicles in only a few minutes and absent SEROIUS offenses they are typically released unless thy are illegal
The POINT is there are TWO means that people are getting arrested by ICE today – Targeted raids looking for specific people – Criminals or alleged criminals. and the encounters that ICE has with people interfering with those raids.
What is NOT happening is large scale public sweeps.
Regardless, ICE is bound to the same rules regarding the people they detain as all other law enforcement.
ICE can not enter a home without a warrant. It can ask for IC from anyone, but it can not require ID or detain you based on a “mere encounter”. If can demand ID from everyone in a location where they are executing a warrant. If can demand ID from anyone in a vehicle – though it must have reasonable suspicion (a very low standard) to stop the vehicle – Following ICE arround is enough.
It can also demand ID from anyone that initiates an interaction with ICE – if you are a protestor keep your distance from Law enforcement. If YOU make contact with the officer – you can be detained and your ID can be demanded.
Another John Say Gish Gallop brought to you by the FSB.
Not an argument
Current ICE officers are pretty much the same as they have been for the past decade.
ICE has NOT been able to hire large numbers of new officiers until late January 2026.
The large numbers that are NOW being hired are not trained yet and not in the field.
The Officer who shot Good was a 10yr vet – that means he joined ICE under Obama.
Nearly all current ICE officers have been part of ICE longer than Trump has been president.
New hired as mostly people who have a law enforcemnt background.
At the time of the BLM riots in Minneapolis MPD had 980 officers and was considered short staffed.
Today they have 500. Those 480 officers who left MPD and other “defund the police” cities went somewhere –
they went to other police forces and many are now looking for jobs with ICE.
These are NOT inexperienced people.
This is just a stupid left wing nut claim.
Like always YOU just make things up.
You hear some other left wing nut say they are not trained and therefore it must be true.
“The Officer who shot Good was a 10yr vet – that means he joined ICE under Obama.”
Jonathan Ross may have joined DHS under Obama, but he was radicalized under Trump; 5 of the last 10 years. He tried to drag a car to a stop less than a year ago and used his injuries then to justify killing Good.
ATS – ICE’s job is to detain and deport illegal immigrants. They did so over 3M times under Obama.
While Trump is deporting people at Twice the rate of Obama, and equally important securing the border such that illegal immigration in the US is NET negative.
It is still basolutely true that up to 480K illegal immigrants a year were deported by Obama.
Not only was Ross under Obama, so was Homan and Bovino.
Ross was not “radicalized” – though it does not matter – the LAW specifes that you are to be removed – by force if necescary if you are not a citizen or legal residence. ICE is enforcing the law.
If you do not like the law CHANGE THE LAW.
Ross did not try to frag a car to a stop. An illegal immigrant in a vehcile was ordered to exit. They refused. The team Ross was part of then sought to remove him by FORCE – that is what will ALWAYS happen when you refuse a LEO’s order to leave a vehicle. SCOTUS within the past 5 years affirmed that LEOS may order you out of a car and may use FORCE if you refuse.
Ross broke in the rear window was seeking to entern the rear seat to assist in removing the illegal alien who refused to exit the vehicle. Other officers were trying to get in the vehicle to remove the illegal by other means.
The illegal drove off in the care while officers were trying to remove him.
Ross having moved faster than other officers was partly in the car and got dragged.
Those are the facts.
This might be hard for you – but our legal system has actually fairly well defined what LEOs can and can not do and Ross in BOTH instances was acting within the law and the parameters of the courts.
The “rules”, Policies etc. are setup to enFORCing the law, and to protect ACTUAL RIGHTS.
This is actually the lowest level of due process.
The rules and polices are NOT setup to provide a guaranteed means by which people can escape Law Enforcement.
In fact they are setup the Opposite.
The benefit of the doubt IN THE MOMENT goes to the LEO in any situation where outside of the moment the lawfulness of the LEOs actions can be dispassionately considered.
Put more simply if a LEO gives you an order – you MUST obey it – regardless of whether you think it is lawful.
You get to challenge the legality of the order LATER – with a lawyer if you wish.
But NOT on the scene and in the moment.
Georgie, why don’t you park your sorry body out in a street, making other cars go around you, sit there and blow your horn, dancing in rhythm with the horn, and see how long that lasts. You’ve reached the point where your blinded nonsense is not even worth reading anymore
Did you fail to see the other car that was blocking the street, preventing Good from using that lane?
Of course you didn’t see what would undermine the argument.
X, are you a commie?
X – pretty much every single fact you assert is incorrect,
Worse pretty much all of them are OBVIOUSLY incorrect and you would know that it “you only had a brain”
You can get data on arrests from the DHS web site. You can get the data down to individual arrests.
There are 1M LEOs in the US, they make 7M arrests per years – that results in about 400 officer invovled shootings,
About 100 of which end up with the officer being killed.
Of all of those in about 10 cases a year the person shot is actually innocent.
There were about 6,000 ICE officers in 2025 – that will mnore than double in 2026.
Those 6000 ICE officers made just shy of 1M arrests. Of course there is a big difference between ICE and local police.
ICE officers are being given lists of people to arrest by the other 21,000 ICE employees as well as DHS and states that actually cooperate with ICE. So all ICE officers do is make arrests. Regardless they make a huge number of arrests compared to other LEOs.
Contra your claim they are VERY experienced at making arrests – they make far more arrests than a normal LEO.
Next – the media is completely on top of ICE right now – everytime ICE fires a gun – it gets reported,
Everytime they even appear to make a mistake – it gets reported.
Despite that there was been exactly ONE fatal shooting by an ICE officer out of 1M arrests – that is a FAR LOWER rate of fatal shootings than other LEOs. There have probably only been a dozen total shootings by ICE in the past year – again far less than other LEOs.
Your claim that ICE is inexperienced is garbage.
Further the left wing nut MSM is reporting everything ICE is doing – and aside from a few migrant farm worker sweeps early in 2025 ICE is NOT doing alot of raids of factories, Home Depots, farms that employ illegal immigrants.
It is NOT that they do NONE of the above. What is the case is that they hit a Home Depot or a Farm or a Factory when they are after a SPECIFIC Criminal illegal alien and they arrest anyone else that is illegal that is their.
Some of this was also true when Obama was president – but there were FAR MORE sweeps – ICE raiding a farm or a food processing plant or … These made the news and typically there were a couple of hundred arrests and deportations at one time.
Under Obama ICE was also deporting illegls that committed crimes. But because we had NOT flooded the border with potentially as many as 21M illegals over 4 years – and we did not have countries like Venezuela opening their prisons into the US, there were far fewer criminal illegals to arrest.
There was also a difference because Biden was giving TPS status to extremely poorly developed countries – Somalia, Haiti – we took in large numbers of Afghans. This is a big deal because these are the hardest people to integrate. They have very poor education cultural values completely at odds with any modern civilized society. They have radically different ideas about sexual activities involving children as an example.
Regardless my point is that with only a small amount of intelligence you would KNOW even from what is being reported in the MSM that much of what you are claiming is garbage.
Nice work John Say.
ICE has lower risks because they are going after working immigrants without any gang ties and supporting families and paying taxes. They do this because the risk to the ICE agents is minimal.
There is no evidence that Venezuela or any other country opened their prisons and sent prisoners to America. I doubt they could afford to do so, to begin with, and it would be readily detected.
“ICE has lower risks because they are going after working immigrants without any gang ties and supporting families and paying taxes. They do this because the risk to the ICE agents is minimal.”
Why do those of you on the left insist on making OBVIOUSLY stupid claims.
Did you not read what I posted above – regardless you can confirm it on DHS’s web site.
Of the nearly 1M ICE arrests last year nearly 800K of them were eithe rconvicted criminals or alleged criminals – people with outstanding criminal charges.
“There is no evidence that Venezuela or any other country opened their prisons and sent prisoners to America. I doubt they could afford to do so, to begin with, and it would be readily detected.”
You mean no evidence EXCEPT that Maduro openly admitted to doing so, and that significant portions of Tda members as an example are straight from Venezuelan prisons.
Outside of a TINY few left wing nuts – this is not news.
I would further note – this has FREQUENTLY been the behavior of foreign countries – and not just with the US.
When they have large net negative immigration – they open their prisons sending prisoners out of the country.
It is particularly common for socialist regimes – Cuba has done it REPEATEDLY and Openly.
They deliberately seed criminals into otherwise legitimate immigrants to make life difficult for the receiving country.
Further they do so to reduce their costs to maintain prisons.
Further – in some cases as government policies – as in Venezuella where we effectively have a narco terroist state, but also in other south and central american countries the cartels themselves deliberately send their own “soldiers” in the stream of illegal immigrants. These people are the distribution side of their drug empires.
If you are the Sinola Cartel you can transport Drugs to some US gang that sells those drugs,
Or you can send your own people into the US – violently push the other gang out of the way and have end to end control of your drug distribution.
In many cases the “soldiers” – teens and young adults with pretty much zero life prospects where they are, under the worst of circumstances end up in US prisons – which is “the high life” compared to where they came from.
What is less common regarding Venezuella is that the Cartels and the Govenrment are intertwined.
X – you are full of schiff and if you were paying the slightest attention you would know better.
There was near zero involvment of Article III courts during Obama, during Trump’s first term, and during Biden,
because there is almost ZERO article II court jurisdiction in Immigration.
And prior to 2025 the courts dismissed immediately the kind of stupid claims that are being litigated today.
I would further note that with the exception of Boasberg who has been lawless for a long long time all the way back to F#$King over Carter Page, nearly all the rest of these cages are before Biden appointees.
You talk about inexperience – THAT is where we have massive inexperience.
We are seeing both Trump and Obama judges overruling Biden judges on immigration issues because simply
There is very little jurisdiction for Article III courts in Immigration.
You would not guess that from the cases we see in the past year – but this will all blow over soon enough.
The apelate courts are slowly dispatching this garbage, and when they do not we are wasting Supreme Court time doing so.
Regardless, as YOU do not appear to grasp deportation is NOT a criminal process, It is more akin to parking tickets.
You are entitlled to very little due process for a parking violation.
Illegal immigrants have no rights at risk. They have no right to be here. The only due process they are entitled to is the government establishing they are not a citizen or legal resident.
And the standard of proof is the preponderance of evidence – not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Homan Bovino and even the officer that shot Good were all hired by Obama.
Nearly all the officers in Mineapolis right now were hired before Trump took office.
as the BBB starts to take effect large numbers of new ICE officers will be hired – that has only just started.
Most of these are current or former LEOs – they are police officers – often from places like Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland that went through this “defund the police” BLM nonsense.
MPD has been at half strenght since the Floyd nonsense – it is hard to hire officers to work for a police force that does not stand behind officers.
Regardless ICE is not going to have difficulty hiring expereinced LEOs
Homan had a medal put around his neck by Obama for the great work he did exporting illegals. The only difference now is Trump is president.
Who is “Homan Bovino”?
Homan is the Border Czar, Bovino is the head of CBP.
No ICE is not hiring proud boys etc.
It is hiring mostly people who are or were LEO’s elsewhere in the country – often from “defund the police” locations that have shed as much as 50% of their officers.
It is also hiring former military police, and some military.
It i hiring these people – because there are alot of them and they do not need much training.
Most places that have lost officers have lost them because surrounding areas pay better. There haven’t been any decreases in police budgets. What concerns some cops is that the administration decides to not longer allow cops to beat people to death and seek accountability and many cops really hate being held accountable.
Again do you actually think before you post.
If what you claimed were true – it would have been part of a long term Trend. Not a sudden shift.
MPD went from 980 officers to 600 in the year of the Floyd riots.
They are down to 500 now.
They were under staffed at 980.
As to other departments paying better – These officers would love if that was true.
But the best pay, the best retirement, the best benefits – with few exceptionss are in major cities.
Being a member of a 4 person police force in Podunk does not pay well.
But it radically reduces your odds of ending up in jail because the city will not stand behind you.
Further in Podunk you are a respected member of the community – In Mineapolis you are a “pig”.
Were budgets actually reduced ? In many cases yes MPD and NYPD and SPD and LAPD dramatically cut budgets.
Though in some cases when things went badly these were at-least partly quietly restored.
But mostly money was redirected.
Just to be clear there are LOTS of alternatives to standard police law enforcement, and I STRONGLY support most of those – especially when they are carefully implimented – rather than blindly implimented.
BUT these are “luxury goods” – they are much more expensive, AND they are supliments – they do NOT reduce the need for normal law enforcement.
My wife has a masters in “restorative practices” – there are many means that work to reduce criminal recidicism.
They work – not 100% of the time – but how much should we pay to reduce the recidivism rate of murders and rapists by 30% ?
But again they are an EXTRA COST – a luxury good and a supliment. Not a replacement.
The advent of Body Cams, Dash Cams and a populace with cellphones has RADICALLY reduced claims of police brutality.
It is not clear whether it has done so because police are behaving better, or because the presence of video, undermines claims of brutality.
Regardless claims of police brutality are WAY WAY down.
Aparently you beleive anything some left wing nut posts on Bluesky.
There is pretty much nothing in your post that is accurate.
Most of it can not even get onto CNN or CBS it is that stupid and bad.
“Wrong. What they constitute criminality can be as lowly as a traffic ticket or a parking violation.”
False. Ice gets information about crimes and criminals from reporting to the FBI,
states and cities do not report charges and convictions for parking tickets to the federal government.
They do not report traffic violations, They generally do not report summary offenses or many misemeanors.
You really do not think before you post.
Where do you think ICE gets the information to draw up the warrants to arrest people ?
A Ouija board ?
Eventually ICE is going to exhaust the huge pool of criminals illegal aliens in the US and THEN we are going to see increasing deportations not involving crimes. But we are not close to that day yet.
“Renee Good, was not doing anything wrong. ”
Of course she was – she had been following ICE arround for Days – asside fromt he fact that is actually on the record and there is video of her blocking traffic to stop ICE several hours before, Beccda admitted as much when she told Ofc. Ross that they do not change their license plate every day. Unless you are clueless that means – ICE had stopped the Goods before.
The NORM before arresting people for obstructing ICE is to WARN THEM the first time.
BTW – there is video of THAT TOO – there is video of ICE officers telling people who blocked the road that they are in violation of the law and they could be arrested, and that they should leave and not obstruct ICE again or in the future they will be arrested.
Their information is entered and should the be caught again – they get arrested.
That is what was happening with Renee Good.
She was obstructing ICE for atleast the 2nd time and she was ordered out of her car to be arrested.
Regardless, when you are confronted with a LEO with flashing lights
YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE.
I am surprised that ANYONE is so stupid they do not know that today.
When an officer puts on the flashing lights
YOU ARE BEING DETAINED.
You are either subject to a “terry stop” or you are being arrested.
If you leave before the officer turns off their lights – you are committing a crime.
When the officer turns off the lights and/or tells you you are “free to go” – then and only then you can leave.
This is true whether it is a stop because your tail light is out or your are being arrested for a crime.
When the officer orders you “Get out of the F#$King car”
– you are obligated to do so – there is a recent supreme court case on EXACTLY this.
Refusing to follow the order is a crime.
Regardless, if you fail to do so you WILL be removed by FORCE.
Anything you do at that point aside from comply – is Resisting arrest.
Good was making a long list of escalating mistakes that likely were going to land her in prison.
While it is stupid to protest ICE – if you have a problem with the law – take it up with congress – not ICE.
Even so stupid protests are your right.
But you are absolutely not free to interfere.
You can not block traffic.
You can not even intentionally make contact with LEOs
It is generally recomendment that you stay atleast 10ft back.
PErsonally I would recomend much farther.
When ICE is arresting someone – they are likely a criminal.
They may be a very dangerous criminal.
One of the reasons that ICE typically uses relatively large teams is to dissuade those being arrested from doing something stupid – like going for a gun.
Do you really think being near an ICE officer when a shoot out starts is good for your health ?
Why left wing dingbats think it is a good idea to even be NEAR LEOs when they are conducting an arrest is beyond stupid.
All you are doing is making things more dangerous for everyone.
But you are clueless narciscists.
Obama would have never allowed the violent apprehensions and the poor vetting process of agents the current ICE has.
Obama wouldn’t even allow law enforcement to deal with the Democrat’s native American murderous felons, Black Liars & Marxists, with their Michael Brown “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” violent riots that began in Ferguson and spread across America. Obama’s sole purpose was to spend eight years driving a wedge into the surviving cracks of remaining Democrat racist division, and bring them back to their original glorious form in the Kluxxer Democrat states of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
When X ignores that to make claims about “violent apprehensions and poor vetting processes”, we’re getting nothing but Cheap Fake Democrat American Marxist BullSchiff.
“Renee Good, was not doing anything wrong… and remember, the Obama Trump-Russia Dossier was 100% verified (and that laptop actually wasn’t Hunter Biden’s).”
Damn! There’s sunlight – not gaslight!!!! X/Anonymous/George/Svelez is so darned persuasive! I’m convinced – where do I go to register as X’s fellow Democrat!
X,
All those things which rational people would see as bad, are seen by conservative Republican White Nationalists as necessary and good for their position in the world. They are largely failures in life and want to blame someone else for their inability to succeed. They are closely aligned to the Nazis, the incels, and to the KKK.
“ICE under which administration is invading houses, schools, killed a woman in her car.”
Police enforce the law we pass.
If you do not want them coming into your home … – do NOT break the law, or change the law such that your actions are no longer a crime.
We can debate what the law should be – we do so publicly and our decisions are ultimately confirmed by legislatures passing the laws that we decided as a result of that public debate we wanted. If you do not like those laws – win the public debate. Persuade the legislature to change the laws.
Regardless ALL laws are ultimately imposed by FORCE. If you chose to interfere in the enforcement of the law – as opposed to voicing your disagreement with the legislature, then FORCE will be used against you. If you resist MORE FORCE will be used.
If you are unwilling to back down – you will lose your property, your liberty, your life – depending on how forcefully you resist.
The alternative is Anarchy.
There is not one of us that thinks our govenrment is perfect.
The difference between the right and left today is how we deal with that.
The reason that people do not trust those of you on the left – is that there is absolutely nothing you will not do to get your way.
And yes, that is a lack of morality, ethics, scrupples.
Trump has power because he was legitimately elected AND because he is acting within the laws and constitution.
You can legitimately constrain Trump by refusing to vote for him, and by working to change the laws and constitution.
ICE is not invading peoples homes and schools, They are enforcing warrants to remove – by FORCE – because government is FORCE, people who by laws we as a people enacted are not legally free to be in this country.
Renee Good is dead because intentionally or recklessly she used Deadly Force against others to thwart the enFORCEment of those laws.
It is a tragedy that she is dead. A tragedy not only of her own making – but of yours.
The use of FORCE by ICE is moral and ethical – it is force being used to enFORCE the law.
The use of FORCE by the left – by “protestors” is not.
It is not moral to attack police for enforcing the law. The moral means to oppose laws you beleive are not moral is to change them.
yes, let’s talk about ethics and scruples dem.
James
The Zips are in the wire now, it’s too late, it would end in armed conflict. It’s really not about race, it’s about the social status and money. So many minorities believe they are discriminated against and fall to the Democrats lies. In reality it’s due to the rank and file position that God, they themselves and their families control. You have to work hard and raise your family to do same to get to the top of the our individual pile we are capable of getting to. That pile is dependent upon the intellect and fortitude that each one of us controls, ethics and morality are the guiding principles. That means if you are a righteouse person and able to deflect the temptations and have an IQ of 80, you’re in the labor pile, if you’re in the IQ of 100 you’re in the trades pile, if you are in the 110 pile and up you’re the professional pile. The ability to earn and provide for yourself and others IS the American dream we all strive for, and then there’s Politics and Hollywood, where it’s dictated by the lucky sperm club or having dirt on those who you can extort.
Do not make this about minorities.
The problem is not with minorities.
It is with the left – often the white female elite left.
Increasingly minorities are running away from these harpies.
John
It IS about the minorities, it’s about gerrymandering to gain a block vote of MINORITIES. Their idiotic cheerleaders are the elite women and men that have been indoctrinated into the skewed BS the Democrats sell. Unfortunately, the numbers of minorities running away are still negligible when you examine their block votes and their enhanced number of representation die to census data. The better that people understand the path to success is through righteousness, hardwork and sound family values and fellowship. Money is not master of our being free men.
James,
The primary check on political idiocy is failure.
The poor choices of CA etc. have resulted in turning the paradise of CA into a h311hole that people are fleeing.
We can rant at each other about left vs. right.
In the short term people are often seduced by shiny objects promised for free.
In the long run the reality of what works and what does not tends to win.
Trump exists – because the left has failed.
The future of the politics that Trump represents rests on whether it succeeds or fails.
“ Trump exists – because the left has failed.
The future of the politics that Trump represents rests on whether it succeeds or fails.”
It’s already failing. What keeps it going is the right’s denial of reality. Even Trump’s tariffs have not produced the outcomes he claims.
Remember all those trade deals he was supposed to make? 90 trade deals in 90 days? Food prices have not come down. Trump’s tariff authority is very likely to be severely curtailed and likely to be forced to refund Billions to U.S companies. His Venezuela oil promises are already set to fail. Because U.S. oil companies will not be investing in Venezuela after investing half a trillion on Canadian tar sands, pipelines, and refining capacity.
Trump’s policies are already failing, and they are going to be worse after the mid-terms. Democrats stand a very good chance of winning the house back hand that will spell trouble for Trump.
” Even Trump’s tariffs have not produced the outcomes he claims.”
Correct – Tarrif revenue last year was 300B not 1T.
Still it was 300B.
And contra the left – it has NOT increased inflation.
In fact there are now economic studies coming out claiming Tarriffs REDUCED inflations.
No there will be no refunds – first SCOTUS will not permit that.
But beyond that – the SCOTUS case which Trump may lose is based on ONE tarrif authority Trump is claiming.
There are more than a dozne Laws that give Presidents Tarrif powers. The one before SCOTUS is the broadest – with the least strings.
Trump wants that blessed because it gives him the greatest freedom and latitude.
But there are plenty of authorities that will be used to justify the Tarrifs Trump hhas imposed.
They are not going away. They just may become more complicated.
As to trade deals – Some have been made, others are still being negotiated.
Like most everything Trump has ever claimed “Day one” never means “day one” – but if he says something will happen – it nearly always does.
Regardless, there have been dozens of trade deals completed, there are many more making slow progress, and some may never happen.
That is the real world.
Regardless just as the claim that Tarriffs would produce $1T in revenue are wrong – only 300B. So too the claims that they would increase prices and cause shortages are wrong. US Consumers are NOT having problems finding what they want, and they are not paying more for it.
I do not give a schiff about his Venezuelan oil promises. Except to point at that you are full of Schiff. Like Tarriffs they will not prove the immediate boon to americans Trump promises. Nor will they prove the failure the left claims.
I doubt that the claims of VZ oil reserves are correct – I beleive they are greatly exagerated. Regardless, VZ is an oil producing nation and can produce significant amounts of oil. There are actually few technical problems in doing so quickly.
The big problems are political. First VZ oil is a heavy oil – refineries have to be altered to refine it. An increase in VZ oil production is leverage against Canada as the refineries that process oil from Canada can process oil from VZ.
But that does not increase refining capacity, it just creates and oversuplly and reduced price for heavy crude.
Further Oil companies are not rushing to increase supply as that can reduce profits.
Ultimately they will do so anyway. But they are not going to rush.
Next the US and VZ need to boost VZ production – to disempower VZ drug cartels.
Absent rebuilding the VZ enconomy – and oil is a significant and easy to impliment factor in that.
VZ will remain a narco state even without Maduro.
But the big impediment to Oil Companies investing in VZ is that TWICE VZ has nationalized them.
Oil companies will invest in VZ when the US provides a guarantee that VZ is not going to take their money and nationalize them again in a decade.
California, alone, would be classified as the 4th or 5th largest country economy in the world.
Selective blindness in a party about their candidates is common. However, Gavin Newsom has shown us all that total blindness does happen.
Shown? Proof?
California
“ Judge Lee notes that the stated intent to create a Latino-controlled district ignores that this is already one of the most powerful and well-represented racial groups in California: “Latinos do not just make up the largest racial/ethnic group in the state … [but also hold] significant sway among California’s Democratic elected officials and leaders.”
So, because California has a huge Latino majority it’s redistricting is racial?
Turley pointed out that even the most conservative justices in the Supreme Court agreed that Texas AND California’s redistricting efforts were wholly partisan and Constitutional, but a lone Trump appointee’s opinion shows they were wrong? The Supreme Court’s conservatives agreed with Texas’ effort and in doing so they made it much easier for California to do the same. California did nothing different than what Texas did therefore any idea of a Supreme Court challenge to California’s redistricting is bound to fail, unless the Supreme Court’s conservatives make some novel exemption that carves out Texas as an exemption of sorts.
X
There is zero doubt why CA is redistricting – just as there is no doubt why TX is.
This is ofaul power politics at its most egregious.
It is also perfectly constitutional.
If that bothers you – you can amend the constitution.
I would counsel you not to -= not because political redistricting does not stink to high heaven,
but because further sucking the courts into politics is a cure worse than the disease.
Is CA’s redistricting racist ? It appears so. Regardless, hopefully SCOTUS will put an end to the unconstitutional section 2 of the Voting Rights act.
and we can reduce the advance of politics into the courts.
“So, because California has a huge Latino majority it’s redistricting is racial?”
It is the left that expects perfect minority representation or remedial minority over representation.
Neither MLK nor any sane person wants a society were we carefully try to force fit everything into a perfect match for the statistical makeup of the population. MLK argued that we should chose based on ones character not the color of ones skin.
Somehow that is perfectly fitting – as MLK was undeniably a Moral giant, with feet of clay. Exactly like generations of moral giants like Franklin, Adams, Washington, Jefferson, … who also had feet of clay.
Regardless the question is not whether CA’s redistricting is moral.
With absolutely zero doubt we are NOT going to agree on that.
It should not be too difficult to find some on the left – probably YOU to claim that the only moral redistricting of CA would be if All districts were racially gerrymandered hispanic.
The consequence for the gerrymandering in TX and CA rests with the people of CA and TX not the courts.
“ Is CA’s redistricting racist ? It appears so.”
And so did Texas. Because even by Texas conservative courts they deemed the redistricting effort racist. Until SCOTUS intervened. So if Texas’ effort appears racist and so does California’s then both are perfectly constitutional as you keep noting. So what is the point of Turley’s argument? That California’s redistricting effort unconstitutional, but Texas isn’t because one Trump appointee who ended up in the minority said so? It’s clear SCOTUS won’t be ruling on this if they already deemed Texas similar effort perfectly constitutional.
No, the TX one was NOT racist. Race was NOT a consideration at all. Whereas in CA it was an explicit consideration. That is the difference.
Judge Lees argument – which will likely prevail in SCOTUS – and in fact will be decided by SCOTUS possibly in days before the CA case gets their, is that you can not intentionally create majority minority districts.
SCOTUS is likely to find VRA S2 unconstitutional in the next few weeks.
States like X have sought that for decades.
BTW the claim that TX redistricting was “Racist” was because it did NOT create majrity minority districts intentionally.
Personally I do NOT agree that this nonsense should be decided by the courts.
Congressional districts are a POLITICAL QUESTION, legislatures create the districts and voters get to decide if they wish to keep those legislators.
Further Gerry mandering for partisan advantage (as opposed to creating safe seats) is a very dangerous bomb that can explode in the party doing its face.
In CA half a dozen seats were decided by about 1% of the vote. Accross the country an increasingly large number of seats are decided by 1% of the vote. Gerrymandering INCREASES that number dramatically.
If we have 100 house seats decided by 1% of the vote – in a normal year – 50 will go one way and 50 the other.
Both parties engaging in approximately the same amount of gerrymandering.
But if you get a year in which voters are pi$$ed and lean one way or the other – those districts could go 90:10 not 50:50.
CA is trying to get rid of 5 GOP seats. – doing so will INCREASE the number of 1% seats.
TX has gotten rid of 5 D seats – doeing so will increase the number of 1% seats.
I think that is stupid for both parties.
But they are free to do so.
What is it NOT is something I am going to loose sleep over or get all worked up into a lather.
Gerrymeandering is a smelly process – but it is not a consequential threat to the republic.
Far far far more important is election integrity.
I am far more worried about flipping 1% elections through fraud than Gerrymandering.
So, because California has a huge Latino majority it’s redistricting is racial?
No, California’s redistricting was explicitly racial. The person who was given the task of drawing the map explicitly said so. The law as it stands now, until SCOTUS changes it, is that racial redistricting is not allowed, except where it’s required, which is when there is entrenched “systemic” racism in the electoral system. That is utter BS, but it’s currently the law. California, however, cannot appeal to that exception to defend this map that was drawn with the explicit and conscious purpose of creating an advantage for Hispanic voters, because in California there is no systemic racism against those voters. The system in California works very well for them, so the usual racism excuse that works in other states can’t work there.
even the most conservative justices in the Supreme Court agreed that Texas AND California’s redistricting efforts were wholly partisan and Constitutional
No, they didn’t. No one on the Supreme Court has even considered the CA effort, so they can’t express an opinion about it. An off-the-cuff remark in an unrelated case is not an opinion. When they consider the facts in CA, then they can form an opinion.
Come on Man! The Left loves discrimination that feeds their goals – stay in power no matter what it takes! If you gotta create a little salsa flavored district then so be it! Califate (yeah kinda like the Muslim Paradise) has been swirling the drain for decades now so what difference does it make who votes for Dems as long as Conservatives get overwhelmed and eventually run off! Viva la Fruits Nuts Berries and Beans in the Califate!
Assuming good faith on the part of the Democrats is always a bad bet. The party of JT doesn’t exist anymore and is unlikely to return.
I did a data analysis of California November 2024 voting. Data shows CA voted 40% republican but only had 17% representation in US House. Moving from 17% to even less to me represents an obvious move to further restrict conservative voters. Currently 9 seats of 53 R. Going to 4 seats should be thrown out. Hard Stop.
Do you have the same concerns for how Texas did their redistricting?
Census
Old Guy, that is not the correct analysis. If the CA map was drawn with no racial goals in mind, then it would be 100% lawful. There are simply NO GROUNDS for throwing it out just because it heavily favors Democrats. It’s supposed to do that. The problem is that it was drawn up with an explicitly racial goal. The guy who drew it says so. And THAT makes it illegal.
Why do Democrats presume that people of a certain ethnic group can only be properly represented by people sharing that same ethnicity? That is the height of racism. Should white folks demand they only be represented by white people? That would be racist. Well, then. Democrats constantly treat people as though they are robotic, mindless voting blocs, with no capacity for independent thought. Shameful. And quite racist.
Dems presume…. just like reps. Whiteys!
Turley seems to ignore the Texas redistricting effort which has similar racial intentions and Texas lawmakers have stated it is meant to keep Latino populations in check. If it’s ok in Texas it should be perfectly fine in California.
It’s notable that there is no certainty about any change or constitutional issue when Turley hedges his prediction with “may”, “could”, and one dissenting judge.
It also shows how big of an effect California’s redistricting effort in response to Texas is. They are effectively canceling Texas’ effort and that is why Turley is shining a spot light on this issue that is similar to Texas own redistricting effort.
You ignored what was explicitly identified as a racist problem. If your goal is racism, you succeeded.
“Turley seems to ignore the Texas redistricting effort which has similar racial intentions ”
False – TX’s redistricting is OPENLY politically motivated.
“Texas lawmakers have stated it is meant to keep Latino populations in check.”
ROFL – Republicans are increasingly winning in hispanic districts – even in TX.
There has always been a significant group of hispanic republican leaders.
They are growing.
Absolutely we should shine the light on TX and CA redistricting.
TX is egregiously partisan. CA is egregiously partisan and racist.
hopefully SCOTUS will get the courts out of racial gerrymandering.
And we can address the blatant racism of the left Politically where it belongs.
“ False – TX’s redistricting is OPENLY politically motivated.”
Not by Texas conservative courts. It was only SCOTUS who made that claim after some mental gymnastics. Which is why they can’t rule California any different after helping Texas justify their racial gerrymandering.
“ TX is egregiously partisan. CA is egregiously partisan and racist.”
John BOTH are egregiously partisan AND racist. Don’t pretend Texas is not. Even Texas conservative courts saw their gerrymander effort was racist when Texas lawmakers made it clear it was.
Of course it is political, it can’t be based on race. Lee quickly identified that Californias’ redistricting was race basedper their own definition. That is unlawful and violates the Constitution and civil rights law.
Jeez
The TX map was NOT racist, and the judges who said it was are NOT conservative, and were outright lying.
The TX map was drawn in order to CORRECT a racist map that had been drawn earlier. DOJ wrote to TX threatening to sue it for having a racist map, so it redrew it to ELIMINATE that racism. The 3-judge panel twisted that around and falsely claimed that the goal of eliminating racism was itself racist. SCOTUS properly rejected that twisted reasoning.
In CA the person who was given the task of drawing the map says openly that his instructions were to create a district that maximized Hispanic voting power. That is illegal unless there is systemic racism to overcome, something that is clearly not the case in CA.
X = I have no idea what you are claiming – and neithehr do you.
TX is challenging the VRA S2 – over the past several decades there have been an increasing number of challenges.
The court telegraphed more than two decades ago that the days of VRA S2 were numbered.
Even the Earliest VRA cases made it clear that the VRA S2 was unconstitutional.
SCOTUS created a carvout for redressing past racism. But that carvout was on;ly for a limited duration.
Why the creation fo a constitutional carveout by SCOTUS was unconstitutional.
That carveout ended almost 3 decades ago and SCOTUS has been teeting on ending it since.
In a week or two it is likely gone.
TX redistricting will be found constitutional.
CA will likely not.
X TX has the exact OPPOSITE race issue.
In FACT if TX redistricting is constitutional – CA’s is not.
TX like many states have been trying to get rid of forced racially gerrymandered districts for decades.
The current expectation is that SCOTUS is going to strike VRA S2 as unconstitutional on the grounds of Equal protection.
If they do – TX redistricting is constitutional. CA’s is not.
The Dem mantra: The Ends Justify The Means.
Thank Republicans in Texas! They started this game.
Actulally S2 of the VRA started racial gerrymandering 70 years ago.
Gerrymandering started in Boston approximately 225 years ago. Can you believe it, it started in Massachusetts.
BS the Democraps been doing it for years! Why do you think we are where we are? DEI leadership.
Why do you need keep changing maps? Keep one in place, and so be it.
Because every 10 years we do a census, and the constitution does require that our elected representaives must be assigned to represent equal numbers of citizens.
But Texas didn’t wait for the next decade. They acted midway through the decade because Trump told them to change their maps to ensure a Republican dominated house.
So if Texas has a Hispanic majority it should have a Hispanic majority in their legislature. Obviously it does not.
Gee X lax
Do you suppose that 40 million illegal muthafuggas in our nation with mail in ballots might have had something to do with it?
So if Texas has a Hispanic majority it should have a Hispanic majority in their legislature.
That is illegal.
“But Texas didn’t wait for the next decade.”
Correct – they are responding to decades of court cases noting the VRA S2’s days are numbered.
“They acted midway through the decade because Trump told them to change their maps to ensure a Republican dominated house.”
DOJ threatened to Sue TX for racial gerrymandering so they created a new map to avoid the lawsuit.
“So if Texas has a Hispanic majority it should have a Hispanic majority in their legislature.”
Why ?
Should every state have 50:50 women in their legislature ? Should 5% be required to be Gay ? Should there be a proportionate number of handicapped ?
Voters decide who they want to represent them – NOT Courts.
They use many factors to do so.
The weight that voters give to “identity” is up to them.
The exactly OPPOSITE of what you claim is true – To the extent the legislature should consider Race etc in redistricting it should be BLIND to it – not fixated on it.
Gerrymandering – regardless of which party does it stinks to high heaven.
But it is not unconstitutional.
If we do not like that – we can amend the constitution.
That would be a mistake – the wisdom of the recent SCOTUS decision – and hopefully he forthcoming decision to find section 2 of the VRA unconstitutional is that it gets the courts out of politics.
Here is one accomplishment of trump according to one of his supporters…
“I feel liberated. We can say ‘retard’ and ‘pussy’ without the fear of getting cancelled… it’s a new dawn.”
Thank you DJT.
The least most freedom you are assured of is that you will allow those you hate.
If you will not allow others to say things that offend you, you should expect that they will not allow you to say things that offend them should they secure power.
We defend the free speech of Nazis because if Nazis can not speak in ways that offend us, then all of us are endanger of being silenced because someone takes offense.
Here is one accomplishment of Biden: He was/is a retard and a pussy.
“Here is one accomplishment of Biden: He was/is a retard and a pussy.”
Sorry, must differ: that is two accomplishments.
A retarded pussy
Thanks for the deviation JT. Nothing going on of importance around here so you have to put a post that maybe, just maybe, there might be a problem with California redistricting.
trump is going to invade Greenland because he didn’t get the Peace prize. Really?
What kind of baby is this so called man?
Why can”t you let him write about what he wants and you choose whether or not to read it?
Trump is not going to invade greenland.
Just like Obama refused to rule out using Drone strikes against US citizens in the US, no president is going to remove from the table and option they are not going to use today.
The US has had an interest in Greenland apparently since 1860. We sought to buy it many times before. We took it over by force prior to WWII
And would do so again at the drop of a hat if that was a necessity.
That is reality.
The circumstances of the past have no relevance to the present.
Trump wants Greenland because he is either being pressured to acquire it by others below him or he has no idea what he is doing.
Somebody is whispering in his ear to take Greenland. Trump is too stupid to even know why he needs it. Europe will not allow the U.S. to take Greenland by force. The consequences would not be worth the cost and effort.
OOOOOOOO yeah george. NATO & EU are wimps. They can’t even protect what they have.
Greenland is not an independent member of NATO, but it is covered by NATO’s collective security guarantees because it is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a founding NATO member since 1949.
Greenland is not part of the European Union (EU). It left the EU (then the European Communities) in 1985 after a 1982 referendum, primarily to regain control over its fisheries and exit the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.
F’ed up again eh dustoff.
Trump is too stupid… and yet he is the POTUS. And you, a winey anon.
Without providing an opinion, state the reasons the U.S. has given for wanting Greenland. You can’t do this, so you babble instead of reading.
trump himself tweeted he wants Greenland because he didn’t get the Peace Prize.
Yep, pretty good reason.
The ability to understand causation is complex. Don’t expect to master it. You can’t; your mind lacks the necessary capacity.
“The circumstances of the past have no relevance to the present.”
Of course they do – that is complete total idiocy.
“Trump wants Greenland because ….”
Does not matter why you think he wants it.
Does not matter why he actually wants it.
” Europe will not allow the U.S. to take Greenland by force. ”
The US is not likely to take Greenland by force.
I say not likely – because if we had a direct conflict with Russia – we would occupy Greenland in an instant – killing anyone there who tried to stop us. Blocking the GIUK gap has been US naval and national security strategy since WWI.
We moved into Greenland before the US entered WWII by FORCE – though the Nazi Government of Greenland at the time had no ability to stop us. Regardless we will do that again should circumstances warrant it.
Trump si CORRECT that as a practical matter for GLOBAL security, The US should control Greenland.
I would note that Italy’s Meloni as well as several esstern European countries are backing Trump.
Denmark is not Stopping Russia. Though FRankly Russia does not need to control Greenland. All they need is for the US to be unable to secure the GIUK gap and the radically tip the balance of power in any conflict that even threatens to become nuclear.
Again barring extraordinary circumstances that are highly unlikley in the next 50 years much less the next 3 the US is not taking over greenland by FORCE.
Regardless, the US is also NEVER going to say that it will NOT do so.
Just as Obama refused to state he would not use drones to kill US citizens in the US.
Finally should for some bizarre reason Trump decide to actually take Greenland by FORCE,
there is absolutely nothing Europe could or would do about it but Fume.
It is not even likely they would kick us out of NATO – Europe needs NATO the US does not.
Frankly one of the more likely reasons Trump MIGHT take Greenland by force is in the hopes of ENDING NATO.
NATO is increasingly irrelevant. Europe is capable of defending itself and should do so.
WE have myriads of posters here – left and right claiming that the US shoudl actively involve itself more than it has in the Ukraine war.
That is complete nonsense.
While the claims that Putin is a meaningful threat to europe are also nonsense.
Even if true – that is Europes problem and Europe does not need US help to deal with Putin.
Frankly involving the US INCREASES the risk fo a nuclear conflict.
Regardless, Dealing with Russia, The mediterainian, the mid east and Africa are all INCREASINGLY matters for Europe not the US.
Dealing with the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific are US matters.
Greenland is a US issue because it is one of the most consequential impediments to Russia threatening the US – and more specifically threatening the US nuclear umbrella and the policy of Mutually assured destruction that has prevented nuclear war for 75 years.
John Say, Russia is in no position to even try to take Greenland. They are suffering heavy losses in the Ukraine conflict. They will not be able to sustain a presence or even muster enough ships or personnel to take over Greenland. Trump’s justifications are as usual, pure BS.
Trump’s claim for needing Greenland are not grounded in reality, but more likely vanity.
“ Finally should for some bizarre reason Trump decide to actually take Greenland by FORCE,
there is absolutely nothing Europe could or would do about it but Fume.”
It’s the taking of Greenland and the subsequent fallout from it that is more damaging the U.S. It undermines any alliances we have and Putin would be glad to have that happen. Trump is so easily manipulated by Putin and Trump’s own cronies that any Greenland takeover will result in growing financial strain on OUR economy and debt. The dollar will weaken and countries we consider allies will no longer see us as a stable partner and that would create an opportunity for China to become the stable superpower rather than the U.S.
“ We moved into Greenland before the US entered WWII by FORCE – though the Nazi Government of Greenland at the time had no ability to stop us.“
That is false. We never took Greenland by force. Even before WWII,
German occupied Denmark in 1941, we entered into an agreement with the Danish embassador in Washington D.C. while Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany to establish a U.S. presence in the Danish territory, We never took it by force. They didn’t want to stop us. They wanted to keep German out. But they did not “give” Greenland to the U.S. We never declared Greenland a U.S. territory.
In 1951 we signed another agreement with Denmark to put a base there as part of NATO. Again, not by force.
That’s a contradictory statement. The EU is part of
“ Greenland is a US issue because it is one of the most consequential impediments to Russia threatening the US – and more specifically threatening the US nuclear umbrella and the policy of Mutually assured destruction that has prevented nuclear war for 75 years.”
The only reason why we are in Greenland is because it provides a strategic position to detect nuclear launches from Russia. That’s it. It benefits NATO and the EU as well. Trump wanting to take it over is not just about national security. It’s about access to valuable minerals on the island. That Greenland and the Danish government are not exploiting.
It is also near a proposed new arctic shipping route that can bypass the Panama Canal shorten trade between Asia and the EU and Russia.
The current posture has and still does serve us well. But Trump’s stupid claims about taking over Greenland and Canada are alienating our allies to the benefit of Russia and China. Why? Because Trump is an idiot who has no idea what he is doing.
Russia has no ability to start another war, much less try. They cannot sustain any meaningful invasion, not when their most experienced soldiers and modern equipment are are no longer effective as shown by the Ukrainians. Russia couldn’t even use the North Koreans to help their war effectively.
Xlax
ICE Station Zebra, life mimicking art you blubbering pin head.
” Russia is in no position to even try to take Greenland.”
Likely correct and completely irrelevant.
What matters is the US ability to use Greenland to Thwart Russian Missiles over the poles and Russian submarines through the GUIK gap.
Russian Boomers must get into the Atlantic and off the US coast to be a meaningful threat to the US.
Hopefully we will never face the elevated risk of nuclear conflict with Russia that Biden brought about again.
But if we ever do – if there is ever a situation where the US has no choice but to act even though Russia MIGHT respond by going nuclear. The survival of the world, and of the west will hinge on the US ability to sink every single Russian sub coming through the GIUK gap.
The US has also spent over 40 years developing ABM systems – we now have Aegis, THAD, Patriot and the ground based system located in Alaska and CA. Trump is promising a “golden Dome”
A major part of that will be growing the ground based system in AK and CA – and Greenland is the OPTIMAL location for ground based ICBM interceptors for missiles coming from Russia.
Does the US need to “OWN” Greenland ? Probably not. But in needs a degree of control that is only barely shy of ownership.
I would further note that if DN agrees – which is near certain what Trump is actually after, to allow ABM and similar systems in Greenland, should they EVER come under political threat – should DN ever tell the US to abandon them – the US WILL immediately invade Greenland to protect them.
“They are suffering heavy losses in the Ukraine conflict. They will not be able to sustain a presence”
I have been telling you that Russia is a paper tiger for years. FINALLY you are accepting that.
I would further note that the Removal of Maduro and the possible removal of the Ayatolah in Iran also significantly weakens Putins ability to wage war against Ukraine.
Regardless Russia is still in possession of HALF the worlds nukes.
Every single means of Russia delivering them to the US – ICBM, Boomer, or Bomber is going over the pole and those targeting the East coast – i.e. MOST of them are going over or past Greenland.
“Trump’s claim for needing Greenland are not grounded in reality, but more likely vanity.”
Only in left wing nut world.
“It’s the taking of Greenland and the subsequent fallout from it that is more damaging the U.S.”
If as a child your parents ground you – does the fallout from that damage your parents ?
Europe NEEDS the US, The US does NOT need Europe.
Angry Europeans are no more able to cause meaningful fallout than 4yr olds sent to their rooms.
“It undermines any alliances we have and Putin would be glad to have that happen.”
You left wing nuts are Thick. The relations between nations are based on Trust and Power and self interest
Not any left wing nonsense. While personal relationships are often critical in forming these “aliances”
They have next to nothing to do with maintaining them.
Trump will be gone in 3 years. Europe will have mostly different leaders.
Personalities DO NOT MATTER.
NATO may or may not be arround in a decade.
Most every threat that Europe may face they are capable of dealing with on their own – without the US.
Save the nuclear threat posed by Russia. No other nation on earth has any chance of forcing Russia to back down from a nuclear blackmail, and no other nation in the world stands the slightest chance of assuring that the world survives should Russi pull the trigger.
No aliance in creation will change that.
Europe will remain in the US orbit so long as that is true.
They will remain in the US orbit whether they want to or not.
It is called power and self interest
“Trump is so easily manipulated by Putin ”
God you left wing nuts are morons.
I have said repeatedly – and you are STARTING to grasp that, that the War in Ukraine is a war of attrition and regardless of how well Ukraine has done barring some significant change – They will lose.
As Trump said to Zelensky a year ago – “You have no cards”.
Europe could bring Putin to a favorable outcome for Ukraine – But ONLY if they are willing to commit troops to fight in Ukraine
That is the ONLY means Europe has of altering the outcome.
Frankly Ukraine only remains in the fight at all because 7 years ago Trump pushed the US into preparing the fascility’s to export Natural Gas. The US has replaced NG coming from Russia – otherwise Russia would have Europe on its knees
You left wing nuts are clueless about the tremndous importance of enrgy policy in EVERYTHING
You are to busy trying to force the world to switch to alternatives that are not ready and may never be.
US NG means the US economy is getting ENORMOUS amounts of money from Europe since the war started.
AND Russia is NOT.
I would note that Biden’s corruption in Ukraine was tied to a Gas company tied to a Russian Oligarch.
It is not Trump that is in Putin’s pocket it is Democrats.
All of Trump’s polices have disadvantaged Russia globally.
Increased US oil production makes sustaining sanctions against Russian oil easier.
Removing Maduro from VZ significantly negatively impacts Russias ability to export oil through the shadow fleet and their VZ oil laundering. It also reduces the ability of Iran to evade sanctions, and is contributing to the possible Fall of the Ayatolahs in Iran,
And THAT will cut Russia off from 40% of its munitions.
To my knowledge Trump is not involved in the changes occuring in the Caucauses that are limiting Russias ability to threaten Western Ukraine and freeing up more Ukrainian troops.
Regardless under Trump -= NOT Biden – Russia is being systematically removed from the Russia proxies in its orbit, and systematically cut off from its sources outside of Russia.
Russia is being isolated further and further – not just from Europe, but from VZ, Syria, Iran, Cuba and even China.
All of this diminishes Russias ability to wage war against Ukraine.
The Ukraininas are fighting heroically – and they too are doing a great deal to weaken Russia.
Which do you think is more important – The US supplying Ukraine with 100B in high tech weapons ?
Or the US cutting Russia off from hundreds of billions of dollars and from 40% of the munitions it is using to fight this war ?
Biden and his people were MORONS. They unnecescarily caused this war, and their own idiotic ideology precluded them from successfully fighting the war.
No Trump is not in Putins pocket.
He is in Putins nightmares.
“Trump’s own cronies that any Greenland takeover will result in growing financial strain on OUR economy and debt. The dollar will weaken and countries we consider allies will no longer see us as a stable partner and that would create an opportunity for China to become the stable superpower rather than the U.S.”
Lets see – China has just lost a toehold in South America – as a result of Trump.
Putin is weaken in numerous ways – as a result of Trump.
China is more isolated from the world – as a result of Trump.
China’s self inflicted economic problems are being amplified – because of Trump.
And you are such an idiot you think China’s influence is growing ?
Do you live in the real world ?
The strength or weakness of the dollar is a consequence of monetary not fiscal policy – so go talk to the Fed Not Trump.
Separately while there are impacts of a strong vs weak dollar – it is NOT true that a strong dollar is automatically good or a weak dollar bad. Each have positive and negative impacts.
“That is false. We never took Greenland by force. Even before WWII,”
US soldiers came to Greenalnd and built bases – despite the Danish Government which was occupied by the Nazi’s was opposed to our doing so.
That is called “By FORCE”. There was no killing – because neither the DAnes nor the Germans had the ability to defend Greenland.
Much the same happened in Norway with the Brits and the Nazis invading concurrently. But ultimately the Nazi’s took Norway because the UK was not strong enough to hold Norway.
Regardless they occupied a friendly government BY FORCE to preven the Nazis from taking over.
They were just unsuccessful.
I would further note that during WWII the US took BY FORCE myriads of teritories, colonies and posession of european powers.
We took them because they were benefitial to the war effort.
We took them because because the Nazi affiliate official governments were incapable of defending them.
I would note that the UK “occupied” Iceland BY FORCE in 1940 – look up “operation Fork”
Iceland like Greenland today was a Danish posession.
Just as Trump is doing now – Churchill offered the Danish government in Iceland the oppoertunity to peacefully join the Allies.
They refused, and the Brits invaded.
You left wing nuts are REALLY ignorant of history.
” we entered into an agreement with the Danish embassador in Washington D.C.”
Who did not represent the actual danish government.
“We never took it by force.”
Of course we did. We just did not need to shoot anyone – there was no one there capable or willing to fight.
“They didn’t want to stop us. ”
They who ? A bunch of inuits in Greenlad ? A few Danes who technically owed alegiance to the the Danish government
“On 9 April 1940, Germany occupied Denmark in Operation Weserübung. The Danish government and king functioned in a relatively normal manner until 29 August 1943”
The US stuck a deal with people who were NOT the legitimate government of Denmark.
“They wanted to keep German out.”
Again THEY were occupied by Germany – what THEY wanted in any official was was what Hitler wanted.
“But they did not “give” Greenland to the U.S.”
Correct we just took it for the duration of the war.
“We never declared Greenland a U.S. territory.”
We have never declared Diego Garcia a US territory – yet we are still there and it is highly unlikely we are leaving anytime soon.
We have never declared Okinawa US teritory – but we are not leaving.
“In 1951 we signed another agreement with Denmark to put a base there as part of NATO. Again, not by force.”
So ? That does not change the fact that when we needed it – We took Greenland BY FORCE.
You seems to think it is not BY FORCE unless someone is shot.
When you are pulled over for a traffic stop by the police that is BY FORCE – even if the officer does not shoot you.
Renee good was detained BY FORCE by ICE prior to her RESISTING ARREST and getting herself shot.
She was NOT free to go.
By FORCE is the certainty that arms will be used if you resist.
It is NOT by your consent.
Renee Good did NOT consent to be stopped by ICE – she was stopped BY FORCE.
She did not decide to make a 3pt turn and go home,
She chose to resist being detained BY FORCE.
I keep trying to educate you on the FACT that all government isFORCE.
But you really are clueless.
“The only reason why we are in Greenland is because it provides a strategic position to detect nuclear launches from Russia.”
Only partially correct – though I would note ALONE sufficient.
We are there to DETECT any NUMBER of different threats – primarily by Russia.
We are also there to INTERDICT any number of threats – primarily by Russia.
“It benefits NATO and the EU as well.”
Correct – which is why interfering is STUPID, and why the EU and NATO are NOT going to die on this hill.
“Trump wanting to take it over is not just about national security. It’s about access to valuable minerals on the island. That Greenland and the Danish government are not exploiting.”
Correct, and irrelevant. The national security issue is sufficient. I would further note that US access to rare earths is itself a National Security issue. Just as US access to Venezuellan oil is a national security issue.
“It is also near a proposed new arctic shipping route that can bypass the Panama Canal shorten trade between Asia and the EU and Russia.”
True – one that is wishful thinking.
The only nation that has ever had significant commerce through the Arctic is Russia – and even Russia is barely able to maintain seasonal commerce. Currently that is one of Russia’s means of exporting oil – but it is incredibly expensive.
“Russia has no ability to start another war, much less try.”
Bravo – I have been telling you this for almost 4 years – now – when it is Trump trying to limit Russias options suddenly you grasp reality.
Russia is a dying superpower. That is a dangerous thing.
” They cannot sustain any meaningful invasion”
Who said that this was about whether Russia would invade Greenland ?
The US is not seeking Greenland to thwart the Russian army – we are looking to thwart Russian Nuclear threats.
By Sea, air, and ICBM
“The circumstances of the past have no relevance to the present.”
And yet the Left demands reparations — compensation in the “present” for the slavery “circumstances” of the past.
Imagine that. The Left embracing an obvious contradiction.
Strategic interest dates back even earlier, with U.S. officials discussing the purchase of Greenland as far back as 1867 and again in 1910. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman formally offered to buy Greenland for $100 million in gold, which Denmark rejected.
DJT’s letter to Norway (Perhaps you are not aware, Norway has no administrative relationship to Greenland. That would be Denmark).
“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump began in his letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.
“trump [sic] is going to invade Greenland . . .”
Better that than China or Russia.
If the U.S. got Greenland, the Democrats would eventually hamstring mining in the U.S. so that Greenland (and every state for that matter) wouldn’t be repopulated by Republican workers exiting blue states. Then they’d make Greenland a state with two reliable socialist senators. Puerto Rico and D.C. are already on that short list.
The Democrats can’t wait to kill the filibuster so they can mint new Democrat senators. I don’t know what one would actually call that. “Jeffriemander?” “Nancymander?” I guess we’ll find out.
Trump knows all this. Thus, he’s probably reluctant to give Greenland territorial status, but he wants a stronger security relationship with Greenland so the canoodling with China and Russia that happened in Panama and Venezuela doesn’t happen in Greenland, too. Trump will probably accept an airtight security agreement with Greenland that excludes China and Russia permanently and allows some mining access for the U.S.
This is Trump negotiation 101. Demand the stars to mask one’s real objective. Liberals do it, too; they just whine when others do it; liberal whining is also a negotiating tactic, BTW.
Denmark won’t cooperate easily. If Greenland gets repopulated by Americans, it might vote to break away from Denmark. Remember Texas? At a minimum, Denmark will demand a very high price and/or some limits on America expats.
As for the rest of NATO, Trump is right. They would rather bluster against Trump over Greenland for political points than defend their own borders from fake refugees. Trump should consider reformulating NATO to give Poland, et al, more emphasis.
My opinion anyway.
This is no surprise, Dems are racists – they are responsible for slaver markets and Jim Crow.