Below is my column in the Hill on the decision in Louisiana v. Callais and the false narrative that the Supreme Court majority was motivated by the midterm elections. The case barring racial gerrymandering was the capstone of years of opinions from figures from Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and others to restore a colorblind constitution.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, barring racial gerrymandering, has many on the left feigning vapors, despite the predictions of many of us that this result was likely.
While figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) declared that the court itself has been “gerrymandered” to rig the upcoming elections, this decision is actually the culmination of decades of jurisprudence by various justices — particularly Chief Justice John Roberts.
Indeed, the decision will cement the legacy of the Roberts Court in moving the country toward a colorblind system of laws.
Like most Americans, Roberts abhors racial discrimination in any form. He holds the quaint idea that when the drafters of the 14th Amendment barred discrimination on the basis of race, they meant it. This is why, in 2006, Roberts famously wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Roberts sees no difference between such discrimination when it disfavors one or another race. It is all a sordid business, and he has spent decades writing eloquent arguments for the court to abandon its conflicted and hypocritical approach to racial discrimination.
For example, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court divided five to four on whether to uphold racial admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at the University of Michigan Law School. However, in her opinion with the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that she “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Few of us could understand how O’Connor found a type of expiration date on permissible racial criteria in the Constitution.
Throughout that period, however, certain justices held firm that there is a bright-line rule against such racial criteria. That includes the author of the court’s Callais decision, Justice Samuel Alito, but also Roberts, who in 2007, put it succinctly: “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
One can certainly disagree with this interpretation and the low tolerance for racial criteria. However, this had nothing to do with the midterm elections. It is the result of dozens of opinions building up to this point.
From college admissions to gerrymandering, the court has created the bright line that figures like Roberts have long sought. In doing so, they have moved this country closer to a colorblind jurisprudence than at any time in our history.
The Biden administration was found repeatedly to have violated the Constitution through racial discrimination in federal programs. Democratic leaders have fought this trend and have pledged to reverse these decisions. Some even demand that Democrats pack the Court with a liberal majority as soon as they retake power.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that whites cannot be placed under additional burdens when bringing discrimination lawsuits.
Much of the coverage of the Callais decision is long on rhetoric and short on substance. The court did not “gut” the Voting Rights Act. It also did not strike down Section 2 of the act. Rather, the court held that neither the act nor the Constitution gives legislators authority to manipulate districts so as to effectively guarantee the race of the elected representatives — any race.
For decades, the courts have faced endless litigation over district configurations designed to elect minority representatives. It is a system that gave candidates an advantage based solely on their race. The court held that such racial gerrymandering is unlawful. The Voting Rights Act will now be read to prevent intentional racial discrimination. Courts will still bar any districts designed “to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
That does not mean that racial discrimination has been eliminated in our nation, or that we do not need to commit ourselves wholly to its eradication. The stain of slavery and segregation remains with us, as does the lingering scourge of racial prejudice. African Americans and other minorities still face invidious discrimination that cannot be tolerated in our system. We still have much work to be done.
In the area of voting rights, the courts have and will continue to strike down any rules designed to suppress or block minority voters.
Despite this ongoing struggle with racism, there are reasons to be hopeful. As the Rev. Martin Luther King put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Non-whites are now powerful players in American politics. White voters are expected to be a minority in this country within two decades.
We have now elected a black president and a black vice president. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (who declared the Court “illegitimate” after the Callais opinion) expects to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.
This progress was hard-fought, and both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act played important roles in achieving greater racial diversity in our society.
And the Callais decision is also part of that progress. We are moving into a new era where racial criteria and discrimination are neither rationalized nor tolerated. There is now reason to hope that we will indeed end “this sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
The Constitution does not impose or allow affirmative action anywhere, and it does not mandate segregation, both of which occur as free choice, or discrimination, by free people.
Free Americans enjoy the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property and may claim and exercise dominion over such, to include CC&Rs that restrict rentals and sales to those deemed eligible by the owner of private property.
Imagine you just found that out and that truth of the Constitution has never been supported by the judicial branch and Supreme Court.
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 refutes your misstatement about the “rights” of property renters in regards to racial discrimination.
And the FHA has been found constitutional.
As a landlord, you can certainly kick out a deadbeat renter, one using the dwelling for crime, or vexing the neighbors. Isn’t that good enough? You’re entitled to make all these discriminations based on behavior.
You’re not allowed to refuse to rent to a law-abiding, patriotic minority family.
Why wouldn’t you want it that way? If Asian-Americans grow to dominate the upper ranks of American society 40 years from now and you’re still alive, don’t you want them to have to treat white Americans as equals?
Please do cite any actual, not imagined, constitutional legal basis for the FHA.
And abortion was found to be a constitutional right in Roe.
Oh, and secession is prohibited because secession is not prohibited, right, Einstein?
Start here:
Congress has the power to tax for debt, defense, and “general Welfare.”
Congress has NO power to tax for or fund a Federal Housing Administration, any enumerated power to function as a private for-profit enterprise in the financial services sector, or any power to regulate any facet, aspect, or degree of the mortgage-lending industry.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States….
As was Roe, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was and remains unconstitutional as are Social Security and Medicare, the two communist behemoths.
Im in favor of government segregation based on race in prison housing assignments because otherwise it would be violence and chaos. Of course the pointy headed admin class has no clue about such things.
Sal Sar
I pointed out below that prison authorities can indeed segregate by race during a prison race riot.
“otherwise it would be violence and chaos” not in a well-run prison.
It has always been interesting how Democrats have twisted themselves into intellectual knots attempting to justify discrimination on the basis of race. Despite all the platitudes, every honest person knows that if blacks tended to vote Republican, Democrats would be on the other side of these debates.
Why don’t Black people tend to vote Republican?
Republicans vote for things that harm Black communities.
Republicans promise them job opportunities, Democrats promise them free stuff. Not hard to figure.out. But study history. The first black Senators and Reps were GOP..The Republicans helped pass the civil rights bill. No t one Democrat voted for it. Democrats keep blacks ignorant too.
Northern Democrats voted for CRA64 while Southern Democrats filibustered it. Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen rallied his Republicans to vote for cloture, and the bill passed.
The main GOP opponent was Goldwater, who didn’t see how the Constitution could enable the federal government to force businessmen to serve anyone they didn’t want to.
@anon 4:04: “Republicans vote for things that harm Black communities”
Assuming you’re saying that “Republicans” are ruling the urban minority communities which have basically been poverty centers where the flooding of “other people’s money” is going far more into the pocket of those rulers than to the effective slave states they are ruling?
Perhaps you can give an example of a minority urban district/area that doesn’t and hasn’t voted almost exclusively as and for Democrats – who have ruled them for generations – many of which are aggrandized by those spewing hatred and bigotry against those they believe are the correct ones to hate – often from the pulpit – and those actually enslaved thereby do not realize they have been represented and ruled by those spewing hatred and bigotry (DEI)? Who put the cost of remediating these neighborhoods into their own pockets – often in the name of education and social services, but in reality just “allowance” to friends, families, and those that provide their airplanes, boats, luxury cars, and country/beach estates?
That is wake up!
That old lie again? You don’t see the writing on the wall do you?
Democrats vote for things that harm Black communities. Democrat Gerrymandering by race for example.
like law enforcement.
In the end, race and demographics are only window dressing. The goal is for a political party to win elections and force out all opposition. The purpose of all types of gerrymandering is that they are tools to gain political advantage at the expense of the opposition, regardless of the claimed goals.
The reason race was used in this case was because the dominent political power believed race would be an effective subject to use to its advantage. If mapping of the districs indicated that sex was the most effective way, that topic would be used. It would go even so far if a district was nearly absolutely homogenous among its voters in all regards, race, income, political alignment, etc., politicians would find something to carve up districts to their advantage.
If their research discovered that in this homogenate of a district that 65% of voters favoring Party A ate their soft boiled eggs from the the big end of the egg, as opposed to the little end, once Party A obtained enough seats to gerrymander, they would divide the district to favor the Big-endians over the Little-endians.
Soon, Party A would cater to the Big-endians and claim they supported egg consumption in that manner and they champion Big-endian values, and denegrate Little-endians’. Truth be told, the powers to be couldn’t really give a damn about which side of the egg was eaten first, but because it confers an advantage to being elected it is what matters most.
Regardless, of what the claimed reason for why a district is gerrymandered, it is simply a method to protect one dominant political party over all others. In the end it is always large blocks voters who are shut out of representation.
By arguing that “race and demographics are only window dressing” and that the real goal is simply to “win elections and force out all opposition,” you are articulating the exact reason why the dissenters believe the Court has made the Voting Rights Act unenforceable in these contexts:
(1) You suggest politicians would use any data—even egg-eating habits—to win. The dissent argues that because race is the most effective data point currently available, it is being used as the primary tool for partisan gain, making the two motives inseparable in the real world.
(2) Since the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of federal courts, your argument that “it is always large blocks of voters who are shut out” highlights what the dissent calls a “loophole”: as long as a party claims their goal is “representation for us and not for them,” any racial impact becomes legally “incidental” and untouchable.
In many Southern states, race and party are so closely tied that they are functionally interchangeable. Justice Kagan argued that the majority’s standard allows lawmakers to use race as a “short-cut to bring partisan gains,” effectively making racial discrimination legal if it’s labeled as a political strategy.
To win a racial gerrymandering case, plaintiffs must now “disentangle” race from politics. The dissent argues this is a rigged game because if a state says it was targeting “Democrats” (the “Big-endians”) rather than “Black voters,” the court will accept that as a valid partisan goal, even if 90% of those Democrats are Black.
How did Byron Donaldson ever win his seat as a Republican? I wonder if some are clinging to outdated narratives regarding race and partisan politics. Certainly the Louisiana Dems are.
“The goal is for a political party to win elections and force out all opposition.”
The goal is for the backers of a political party to rig the system in their favor.
Turley,
If this Court truly believed in color blindedness, how could it come out in favor of racial profiling? It lifted the ban on migrant profiling in Los Angeles in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo in Sept 2025.
No explanation was given, though Kavanaugh’s concurrence said that it was “common sense” to discriminate based on clear racial pretext factors like English proficiency and employment in labor/construction.
For more clarity, this is no different than the pretext described in the college admissions case. Harvard’s personal ratings were facially colorblind, but measuring traits like likability, kindness, and courage were adjudged to be pretext for racial discrimination against Asian Americans.
If those factors are racial pretext, then certainly English proficiency and whether someone works in construction are pretext for Latino Americans, no?
Make. It. Make. Sense.
YEah it just so happened that they came up with “traits” that allowed them to prevent Asians and Jews, the two highest scorers, from getting in while Blacks and Hispanics, groups with the lowest scores, took their places. Now they are finding out that the lower scoring groups aren’t thriving there is a huge problem.
The differences between the high scores and low scores are minimal.
If a premie baby isn’t thriving, hullbobby would toss it on the garbage heap rather than help it.
dems punish winners, reward losers. Only losers would vote democrat and what do we have today? a party of losers, big surprise.
Not exactly. Saying an act of Congress cannot be used to gerrymander districts based on race as a matter of state legislation, is not the same as construing the Fourth Amendment to allow on-the-spot police determinations of reasonable suspicion, using English proficiency and construction employment as one of many factors in a totality-of-the-circumstances test. It seems to me you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Why is it apples to oranges?
If the government uses racial pretext like English proficiency as the sole means of conducting a stop under the Fourth Amendment (which, last time I checked…) is incorporated into the Constitution, then the Constitution is NOT colorblind.
If Roberts Court does not believe that discrimination on the basis of race is ever justified, then it surely should not be justified to conduct government searches in the Fourth Amendment context.
And OldMan just to level set – The injunction barred ICE from stopping people solely based on four factors, alone or in combination: (1) an individual’s apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether the individual spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) presence at a particular location associated with low-wage work, including sites like a “bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site”; and (4) the type of work one appeared to do.
ICE was NOT barred from a totality of the circumstances test that considered these any of these four factors among others. So, it absolutely was an example of permitting the pretext of race to discriminate the people police can stop for a search. In other words, if you are white, have no Latino accent, do not look like you have low-wage work, and seem to not work in such fields, you are, by definition, not subject to the same scrutiny by police. It is racial discrimination. Whether that racial discrimination is reasonable or not is a normative judgment that would require first acknowledging that our Constitution permits discrimination on the basis of race.
It’s the difference between state legislation enshrining racial discrimination as a basis for voting, versus what constitutes reasonable suspicion by the police, under a totality of circumstances, to believe a person is here illegally. The Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches and seizures, only against constitutionally unreasonable ones. So . . . what is a “reasonable” search under the circumstances is the (4th Amendment) apple, and whether a state law enshrining racial discrimination as the basis for a voting district violates the (14th Amendment) Equal Protection Clause is the orange.
So many problems with this:
1. As I noted above Vasquez Perdomo does not employ a totality of the circumstances test. It permits ICE to use racial pretext SOLELY as the basis for conducting a stop.
2. Even if it did, reliance of race as a factor among many is STILL not “colorblind” by definition. It makes the color of one’s skin “matter” for the purposes of whether the police can conduct a search.
You note yet again that one is state legislation while the other is police action. Why does this matter for determining whether the Constitution is colorblind? Do you think – for some reason – that state legislation or police action are not subject to constitutional constraints? Both statute and police action must be constitutionally permissible. If the Constitution permits police action to discriminate on the basis of race, then the Constitution permits discrimination on the basis of race. Full (Kavanaugh) stop.
You note that the Fourth Amendment requires a search to be reasonable… But, the Supreme Court last year deemed discrimination SOLELY basis on racial pretext (yet again, see above or read yourself) to be considered a reasonable search.
Either Turley’s claim that the Roberts Court is colorblind is accurate, or it is not. This is not a discussion about whether racial discrimination is normatively ok for the Fourth Amendment or not. But, you have to acknowledge that discrimination on the basis of race was deemed by this “colorblind” Court to be permissible.
Or both you and Turley are willfully blind.
Your entire argument rests on the concept of “colorblind.” That is journalistic or political spin, not part of the Constitution, which never uses that word. I’ve already pointed out that one scenario involves the 4th Amendment, while the other involves the 14th Amendment, which are different clauses with different text and different interpretations.
As for Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, that was a per curiam order granting a stay pending appeal, not an opinion by the Court. It was not a final merits decision in the case. The only Justice who supported the order, who actually wrote to explain his reasoning was Justice Kavanaugh. He initially expressed that the plaintiffs lacked standing. But even assuming standing existed, he expressed that the Government had a “fair prospect of succeeding” noting that reasonable suspicion is a low bar and easier to satisfy than probable cause, and it is based on a totality of the circumstances. He continued, “Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors.”
If you want to say Kavanaugh, and only Kavanaugh, is being inconsistent between his concurrence in Vasquez Perdomo and his joining the majority opinion in Callais, that’s one thing. But even then, your critique cannot validly be based on hand-waivy “colorblind” phraseology. You’ll have a hard time since it’s different provisions of the Constitution.
And even the Equal Protection Clause has never completely outlawed racial discrimination. It imposes strict judicial scrutiny on such classifications, as emphasized in the Callais decision. That means the government has to show a compelling interest in discriminating, and that there are no non-discriminatory means of serving that interest. So, for example, in a prison race riot, the prison staff would be permitted under Equal Protection to segregate prisoners by race.
Did you not read Turley’s article? He is making the claim that the Roberts Court is embracing a “colorblind” Constitution. My point is that this Court is not embracing a colorblind Constitution. It is selectively colorblind. A colorblind Constitution would not permit discriminating based on race in any context including ICE raids.
Hiding behind the shadow docket is not an excuse. By allowing the action to continue, they have permitted the state action to include discrimination based on race.
My original comment was not direted at Professor Turley’s spin, but at your suggestion that Callais is inconsistent with the single-Justice opinion in Vasquez Perdomo.
And we don’t know the reason the majority of the Court “allowed the action to continue” in Vasquez Perdomo. It could be due to a lack of standing. If that was the reason, then whether the case involves racial discrimination is irrelevant.
Again, you seem to keep ignoring this. Not all government distinctions based on race are unconstitutional. Under the 4th Amendment, a very easy-to-meet “reasonable suspicion” bar is raised, whereas under the 14th Amendment a more stringent “strict judicial scrutiny” bar is raised. In either case, it is possible for the government to prevail as long as it satisfies the applicable standard.
We wouldn’t be discussing this if dems could possibly be color blind but here we are and you will no longer be permitted to divide America by race and that’s just how it’s gonna be so go lie down.
So if someone sees a white man commit a murder you would have them look for black men? That is stupidity.
@anon 4:13PM: Please read @oldmanfromkansas logic/issue. It was very well done, even if you are not in agreement. You expression of you own ignorance (“That is stupidity”) is an absurd obfuscation of logic completely absent of any form of logic – ethos, logos, or . . . well pathetic might be arguable.
I can feel how much you want to be right and I’m sorry but it’s transparent, you just want illegals voting dumocrat
Here’s an open secret: Roberts hates minorities and will change the direction of ruling however is necessary to do so.
You don’t get what’s happening here. The dems racially gerrymandering is illegal and immoral and you leftys just don’t like being called out as racist. Prepare to lose your undeserved representation while I scoff at you.
It’s not the same man! let it go! You’re livin in the past man!
Racial profiling had to die with criminal activity. If almost all terrorist are Muslims males it makes sense to look at them for terrorists. It makes no sense to look at Black and Hispanic grandmas.
Same with mass murders. If whie males make up.the greater majority of mass murders, itakes no sense to look.at Muslim grandmas. Really it’s called common sense and studying history.
You don’t understand the 4th Amendment. Consider these two facts:
• Most terrorist attacks motivated by religion are committed by Muslims
• Most American Muslims have no sympathy for violent terrorism, nor any involved in it
What does the 4th Amendment do with these facts?
It protects the greater body of patriotic, law-abiding Muslims from discrimination based on the few Muslims
who are terrorists. How? It says that police cannot base suspicion on racial/ethnic statistical patterns, but rather must have specific evidence of a crime being linked to an individual.
The 4th Amendment rules out racial profiling. It’s taken police departments decades to come into conformance with this law, but most have. A breakthrough happened in the 1990s, when criminologists discovered that most of the crime occurring in minority communities was being committed by a tiny group of career criminals and gangsters. This realization made practices such as racial profiling look foolish and counterproductive. It shifted the focus from race/ethnicity to behavior.
I question how much ICE is using racial profiling. Of course, ICE’s detractors can easily wage such accusations.
But where ICE goes about its mission professionally, looking for specific individuals with a Deportation Order, or incarceration, it’s hard to believe they are using racial profiling. They are using evidence. Yes, there are a few exceptions — rogue elements operating within ICE — and these will make the news. But that doesn’t give fair coverage to ICE teams that are respecting the law and refraining from racial profiling.
I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand the 4th amendment. You seem to be ignorant of the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Race, ethnicity, sex, and all other markers MAY BE USED for reasonable suspicion. They may not form the basis for probable cause.
When screening at the airport, or looking for a terrorist, it is completely reasonable to take into account that any given Moslem is far more likely to be a terrorist than is anyone else. So the fact that someone is Moslem can be a factor, even a large factor, in forming reasonable suspicion, and stopping the person for questioning. You do NOT need specific evidence linked to the individual.
The fourth amendment doesn’t trigger until you want to conduct a search or a seizure, at which point reasonable suspicion is not enough. For that you need probable cause, which must be based entirely on information you have about the specific individual, not about a class to which he belongs.
This is nothing new; it’s been settled law for decades if not longer.
Democrats gerrymandering is just them picking minorities from a list and drawing a border around them, ya know, things they got good at long ago.
I can only see this as a victory. If anything else, it is high time everyone sees that they are worthy of participating no matter who they are, and that good people are just good people. The dems’ race grift has spanned centuries, and I agree that the time for it, and their mentality, is done. Curse Obama and all that followed for regressing us backward by decades. Socialism/Communism have a tendency to do that.
Socialism/Communism also create a personal situation where there is no desire for work because there is little benefit to your efforts. Destroys the human spirit.
I know I’ve said it before, but the Constitution should be amended with a Fair Districts Amendment, stating that only four politically neutral metrics may be used. The districts must be contiguous, equal population, as compact as possible, and split the fewest political subdivisions as possible. Obviously precincts can never be split since they have to have one ballot. (The FDA should also say that federal courts shall not deeme challenges under the FDA non-justiciable, and give Congress authority to enforce the FDA by appropriate legislation.) This would eliminate partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering and every other kind of gerrymandering.
The four metrics listed above are in some tension, as to get compactness sometimes you have to split subdivisions, or to avoid subdivision splits you sometimes have to sacrifice compactness. However, reasonable scoring methods can take all of these factors into account so that two maps may be compared to see which complies better with the constitutional language. A violation can then be proved by showing that the map tentatively selected for passage into law is inferior to another that someone has put forward.
Computer software exists and is usable by all parties to generate thousands of maps and score them. It is not unreasonable to expect that, during the time for formulating new maps based on new census data, the best scoring map will emerge. Enforcing the FDA through legislation, Congress can spell out the details of how to score the maps and the time period challengers have after the initial, tentative map is put forward by the state legislature.
OMFK, that makes too much sense.
This is a good idea, but it can be done through Federal legislation, at least for congressional districts. No need to amend the constitution.
That would be better since an act of Congress is more likely to occur than amending the Constitution. The amendment would only be needed if the legislation is invalidated or if the same limitations were to be applied to the statewide legislative districts of all 50 states.
But would Scotus still be able to say that challenges to partisan gerrymandering are non-justiciable? Perhaps the legislation can prohibit that, but I wonder if that is enforceable to the extent Scotus relies on Article III’s case-or-controversy language. (I believe some of Scotus’s justiciability limitations are constitutionally based, and others are prudential in nature.)
OldManFromKS,
You have mentioned this in the past, and I think it is a good idea and using computer software to make it as neutral as possible.
However, as HullBobby mentions, that makes too much sense. No one on either side of the isle would commit to something like that.
Daniel’s idea of being a Congressional act is a good idea too.
Too bad none of that will see the light of day.
“the Constitution should be amended with a Fair Districts Amendment, stating that only four politically neutral metrics may be used. ”
That seems reasonable, but here is what I suspect you would actually get:
-Endless inconclusive bickering over what test(s) should be used to define a “politically neutral district”
-Even more inconclusive bickering over what constitutes: “contiguous; equal population (i.e., equal in terms of registered voters or total population – I’m sure a great many more potential nitpicks could be concocted); “as compact as possible (imo anyone with an incentive against what you propose could really go to town on that one)”
-If those issues were ironed out, the resulting amendment would never be ratified in any reasonable time, if at all
-If by some miracle such an amendment was produced, submitted, and ratified, those holding a majority would immediately begin finding ways to circumvent the “fairness” produced and undermine its purpose. When the other party ascended to power, they would continue those efforts on their own behalf. Based on historical precedent, I expect that they would be quite successful in that regard.
If that seems cynical, I guess I’ll have to live with that. I think it is largely realistic.
Don – those issues would have to be worked out, and in fact many of them have been worked out already given the Supreme Court’s fairly extensive jurisprudence on equally populous districts. However, those disputes would be at the edges, and you’d still get far less gerrymandered districts than we have now. My proof is that some state constitutions already incorporate these requirements, and they have ended up with much fairer districts than in the states that don’t. These states where Dems and the GOP are battling it out to see who can gerrymander the best are the ones where there is no state-level law requiring politically-neutral metrics.
Daniel pointed out a good idea, in my view, to have Congress make the law instead of relying on a constitutional amendment. Congress could codify the solution to some of these problems into the law, for example, what is meant by contiguous, what is meant by equal population, etc.
One final, very minor, nitpick: I did not suggest “politically neutral districts.” I suggested that a map be required by law to satisfy politically-neutral metrics. That’s a difference worth noting.
i’d suggest a 5th metric: Software can maximize the competitiveness of the general election, making elections too close to predict much more the rule than the exception.
Obviously precincts can never be split since they have to have one ballot.
What is a “precinct”, and why does it have to have one ballot?
I think you have this backwards, since “precincts” are decided after districts and sub-districts have been drawn.
In New York the smallest political unit is an “election district”. These are supposed to have fewer than 1000 people each. But they’re not all equal; if what would otherwise be a single ED is crossed by a district line, it’s simply split into two EDs. Each polling place serves several EDs, each of which has its own table. As a poll worker, the first thing I ask a voter is their address, and I look it up to see whether it’s in my ED. If it’s not, I direct them to the table serving their ED. Or if their ED is voting at a different location I tell them where it is, and which table to go to when they get there.
Politicians: “Gerry !! Gerry !! Gerry !!”
Reminds me of my favorite ancient Egyptian cheer:
Isis Isis Isis! Ra ra ra!
Are Democrats and Republicans two separate races?
It often seems that way. Think carefully before andwering.
If only Democrats and Republicans can win elections .. . it doesn’t matter much how you vote.
*pick a card, any card. ..
“If only Democrats and Republicans can win elections .. . it doesn’t matter much how you vote.”
You have rephrased Tom Woods’ Law “No matter who you vote for, you get John McCain””
Unfortunately, either way, it is very close to absolute truth. Do we need to lower out expectations, and be satisfied with not getting Barack Obama or Joe Biden? Ugh!
“In the area of voting rights, the courts have and will continue to strike down any rules designed to suppress or block minority voters.”
This is among the most ridiculous things Jonathan Turley has ever said. The court has given itself permission to ignore well-documented voter suppression as long as clear intent hasn’t been proven to their satisfaction. So called partisan gerrymandering is just as racist as racial gerrymandering if not more so. There is an excellent chance after the midterms that the Republican members of the House of Representatives will have zero Black members and the single Black member among Senate Republicans is the one who swears America isn’t a racist country.
Turley’s second most ridiculous statement in the same story is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 isn’t dead. First the enforcement provisions were gutted by Shelby and now the definition excludes actual proof as a basis for action.
You don’t have to take my word for anything, just look at what the states are rushing to do now that there is no stopping them. Before the VRA was enacted. 2% of eligible Black voters in Dallas County, Alabama were registered to vote. Not because they were lazy but because of all the systems were designed to work against them including the law and police. How little has changed.
Not because they were lazy but because of all the systems were designed to work against them including the law and police.
Justice Clarence Thomas, black man raised in the worst conditions known, succeeded on every conceivable metric.
How little has changed.
The list is long of blacks who have outperformed >95% of white Americans.
Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Ben Carson, et al endured the brunt of racist conditions that most blacks today can’t even imagine. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had a prima dona life in Miami, attending the best schools that her wealthy parents could afford, sits in her smug perch on SCOTUS while denigrating a towering black icon like Thomas who could teach her plenty. Her arrogance, like yours, blinds her and you. You can’t fathom the thought of being free from your masters on the Democrat National Plantation for the reasons you negated: intellectually lazy. You will always be a slave until you do what living 100% of all organisms do when they are met with evolutionary pressures: evolve and thrive.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS ET
JUSTICE THOMAS , with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, concurring
I join the Court’s opinion in full. This Court should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups “an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 93 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); see ante, at 23–24. By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to “systematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines.” Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 905 (1994) (T HOMAS , J., concurring in judgment). “Blacks [we]re drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [we]re drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” Ibid. That interpretation rendered §2 “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” Id., at 905–906. Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence. Id., at 893.
As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all. See id., at 922–923. The relevant text prohibits States from imposing or applying a “voting qualification,” “prerequisite to voting,” or “standard, practice, or procedure,” in a manner that results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race. 52 U. S. C. §10301(a). How States draw district lines does not fall within any of those three categories. Holder, 512 U. S., at 922–923 (opinion of THOMAS , J.); Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1, 46 (2023) (THOMAS , J., dissenting). The words in §2 instead “reach only ‘enactments that regulate citizens’ access to the ballot or the processes for counting a ballot’; they ‘do not include a State’s . . . choice of one districting scheme over another.’ ” Ibid. ((quoting Holder, 512 U. S., at 945 (opinion of THOMAS , J.)). Therefore, no §2 challenge to districting should ever succeed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf
“African-Americans …still face invidious discrimination” writes Jonathan Turley. Where is that?
If you have to individually name successful people in a group comprising over 14% of the country to prove a point about the entire group, I don’t think you are winning that argument…
Prince George’s County MD has some extremely well off black residents. It is one of if not the richest black neighborhoods in the country.Those folks are successful and proud of their success. One of my former students is the States Attorney for the county. The point is that true success is available to individuals who work hard and play by the rules. 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable that a black female would be states attorney in a southern county.
You are spot on.
That would be the champion recipient of the benefits he wants no one else to have. Thomas is the DEI poster boy, getting recruited to Holy Cross thru what Father Brooks liked to call “affirmative action,” and then Yale thru the same means. Thomas came to hate affirmative action when he figured out he wasn’t really wanted and his Yale degree didn’t get him the same opportunities as his white counterparts.
There is a long list of Black people who have outperformed their white counterparts. There is a much longer list of those denied opportunities because of that same Blackness. Here’s a look at Thomas you might find interesting.
https://medium.com/the-polis/what-happened-to-clarence-thomas-who-wanted-to-be-a-black-panther-and-idolized-malcolm-x-6e39ba5de56a
ENIGMA……Have you ever named that thing on your shoulder, or should we just call it “Chip”?
That doesn’t sound like a refutation of the facts, just name-calling.
Correct!
Cindy was being polite.
S. Meyer…..It’s SO good to see your name again, and read your always intelligent, astute, and thoughtful comments. Hope you and your wife are well.
And there is a long and growing list of those denied advancement or positions due to being white. If we are to survive as a free people this must stop on both sides. We really need to grow up.
Love to see your list.
I was accepted into the United States Navy Aviation Officer Candidate School at NAS Pensacola after college because my recruiter told me they needed a minority. I was insulted but took it anyways because I had fantasies of being a jet jock. I outperformed my peers. One week before my commission as an Ensign, I walked away from F-14 jets and opted instead to go to medical school in a civilian university. I was accepted to medical school because I attended a Jesuit college with a high GPA, and the Director of Admissions, an orthopedic surgeon, with whom I worked at University of Florida, had attended the same jesuit college. “I want more physicians to think like you”, he told me.
Today I run circles around MDs, PhDs, MD-PhDs when it comes to discussing molecular mechanisms of medical pathologies, diagnosis and treatments therein. Not because I’m Cuban. Not because I have a high IQ (but not the highest). It is because I am the most prepared person in the room. Would that you had that sense of ganas (fire in the belly). In spite of having parents who never finished grammar school in Cuba, in spite of English being my 2nd language, in spite of being raised in poverty, I had one thing in spades that many black homes lack today. Both of my parents loved me immensely and instilled that I could do anything in America. Their love as parents carried me over the line whenever I faced adversity including, by the way, from blacks like you. Blacks are one of the most racist groups I have come across as a latino. It is well documented in recent news how blacks in Chicago, NYC, etc have been as racist as KKK folks when it comes to immigrants. Ask me if I care. I just keep succeeding, striving, being the best son my parents raised me to be, so that they can look down from Heaven and say with pride ese es mi hijo
You and I are totally different. I am also likely darker than you seeing that my father’s side of the family was populated with mulattos. My mother’s side with Moors since her family came from the Canary Islands, which was ransacked by Moors – dark, hirsute people with drop dead gorgeous features. That one was for Cindy Bragg. ;-P
good to see you Cindy. I hope you and your husband are well.
Estovir– I grew up in West Palm and we had a number of Cuban families. One in particular had a son named Billy. He was tall, dark, handsome and sang like an angel. I hated him. All the girls loved him. If Cindy had been in West Palm back then we never would have gotten married… she would have gotten in line with the others. Seriously, Billy was exactly what you describe. He excelled at everything. As a Peace Corps volunteer, I will never forget standing on the dike of a rice paddy on Panay Island in the Philippines when the telegram was delivered to me. The helicopter Billy was piloting in Vietnam was shot down and he was killed. I lost a close friend. This country lost a real patriot. He made no excuses. He, like so many Cuban immigrants, was just the best.
thanks honestlawyermostly. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I believe Cindy picked the right man. You two are the only married couple on here, and clearly you have won our hearts.
Sadly Fidel Castro has destroyed that once vaunted culture. The Cuba of today is nothing like the Cuba of pre-Castro. It would be like comparing Germans pre-WWII to what they are today. It’s hard to view Germany’s descent into sloth when one reflect on their once enviable place in Europe when it came to the sciences, the arts, philosophy and more. Communists knew that if they erased a nation’s historical identity, their culture, their roots, they would plunge the nation into chaos. Same has happened in the USA.
Bless you, Estovir!
I was recruited by the Navy as part of their outreach at HBCUs I was taken up in a T-34 trainer with dual controls and experienced flying a plane for the first time. I then went to NAS Pensacola where they tried to sell us on the camaraderie of the Navy. We were taken to the “Official Strip Club of Naval Aviators.” We were awakened at 3 am by officers banging on garbage can lids and barking orders. I’d already pledged a fraternity and seen “Officer and a Gentlemen” so it wasn’t scary. I chose a different path, not to choose an honorable career but because I couldn’t see myself deployed for several months in an environment without women, who weren’t allowed on ships at the time.
My decision had nothing to do with the Black enlisted men whispering “Don’t to it” as we were taking a tour of an aircraft carrier. My older brother was in the Air Force and my mother worked for the FDA and encouraged me to work for the Federal Government. Instead, I took a job with Procter & Gamble in sales and never looked back.
Out of curiosity, how does it make you feel when hard-working Latinos, including some American citizens, are being targeted by ICE and Border Patrol, some as far as being deported? Do you walk around with no fear?
It’s true that many Black families aren’t two=parent households. Have you considered how much mass incarceration has to do with that?
I have spent no time considering the color of your skin. My family contains a range of hues. I’ve spent a lot of time in my pool this year and am getting darker by the week, not that it matters.
enigma—have you thanked Pres. Trump for making the HBCU’s funding permanent? No other President bothered with it.
I remember you were lucky enough to get to go to a private high school.
Remember that I went to private school in 7th grade, I’m happy that my LPN mother and custodian father were willing to make the investment in me to take me out of the area I was zoned for. My “private school” then merged with a public school Two blocks away. Both schools were on the edge of the campus of the University of Minnesota. Except for a few times I got rides, I took the city bus, transferring once downtown, and on a good day it was an hour one-way to go to school, and there was busfare. Education was valued in my home and the whole family sacrificed.
As for Trump and HBCUs, all recent Presidents have taken actions in support of HBCUs, Trump did make some funding permanent, meaning it didn’t have to be reapproved by Congress each year. He also floated in 2017 that funding for HBCUs might be unconstitutional. Trump is capable at any time of deciding that funding of HBCUs is DEI and issuing an Executive Order to end funding.
On the other hand, he is already harming HBCUs when he takes away research grants from Primarily White Institutions (PWIs) because most of them have partnerships with HBCUs. Here are some examples.
Johns Hopkins partners with Morgan State, Howard, and Bowie State
Georgia Tech partners with Morehouse, Spelman, and Clark Atlanta
UNC Chapel Hill partners with North Carolina A&T
University of Michigan partners with Tuskegee and Howard
Texas A&M partners with Prairie View A&M
University of Florida partners with Florida A&M
UC system partners with multiple California HBCUs through national labs
MIT partners with Howard and Morgan State
Duke partners with NCCU
Penn State partners with Lincoln University
Ohio State partners with Central State University
Because these partnerships are structural, any broad cuts to federal research agencies automatically reduce the pool of money available to HBCUs through PWIs.
Here’s how it works at my alma mater, Fisk University thru its partnership with Vanderbilt.
Vanderbilt is consistently ranked among the top U.S. research universities and receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually from federal agencies, including:
NIH (National Institutes of Health)
NSF (National Science Foundation)
DoD (Department of Defense)
DOE (Department of Energy)
NASA
USDA
Education Department research programs
Vanderbilt’s federal research portfolio is one of the largest in the Southeast.
This is not speculative — it’s a matter of public record in federal grant databases.
2. Does Fisk University benefit from partnerships with Vanderbilt?
Yes — and this relationship is long‑standing, deep, and essential.
Because Fisk is a historically underfunded HBCU with limited research infrastructure, it participates in joint research programs with Vanderbilt that allow Fisk students and faculty to access:
Labs
Research equipment
Federal grant sub‑awards
STEM pipeline programs
Joint publications
Graduate‑school pathways
Faculty collaborations
Some of the best‑documented partnerships include:
• The Fisk–Vanderbilt Master’s-to-PhD Bridge Program
One of the most successful STEM diversity pipelines in the country.
Funded by NSF, DOE, and NASA grants awarded to Vanderbilt, with Fisk as a partner.
• Joint physics, astronomy, and materials‑science research
Fisk students work in Vanderbilt labs on federally funded projects.
• Shared federal research centers
Vanderbilt often serves as the lead institution, with Fisk receiving sub‑awards or training grants.
• NIH and NSF training grants
These grants support Fisk students through Vanderbilt‑administered programs.
I should note that funding at Vanderbilt has yet to be blocked and threatened, but should I be excessively thankful to Trump for not yet having harmed HBCUs and making annual funding easier? He didn’t increase funding by the way. Maybe I should praise him like the beginning of every Cabinet meeting. I am critical of Obama for not having done more for HBCUs but he worked diligently to never appear too supportive of Black causes. Trump on the other hand has turned the entire DOJ Civil Rights division’s purpose to that of protecting white people. I’ll reserve my thanks until his term is over, in the meantime, I don’t want to do anything to bring his attention to HBCUs.
enigma…..hmmmmmm…I didn’t hear a “Thank you” in there. And how about a thank you for the First Step program that Obama obviously should have done, but didn’t……too busy shagging his White House chef, who eventually, mysteriously drowned on Martha’s Vineyard at one of Obama and Michelle’s many mansions.
“The First Step Act (2018) is a federal law aimed at reducing recidivism and reforming federal sentencing, which disproportionately impacts Black inmates.” Thank you, Donald Trump!
Also, it’s well-known that Trump was responsible for the racial and social integration of Palm Beach Society years ago. PBS did a show about it.
And by the way, Kamala is 3/4 Asian Indian and only 1/4 black.
Cindy, you seem to have been holding a lot of things in for a while. I hope you feel better now.
Trump used the DOJ (surprise) to help get approval from the town of Palm Beach to operate a private club. He contrasted his club which would accept Black and Jewish members to the existing private clubs to force Palm Beach to approve his application. Mar-a-Lago is private and doesn’t publish membership information and they reportedly have a few Black members. While a few wealthy Black people may have joined, Trump did nothing to benefit the few Black residents of Palm Beach, which only recently had stopped being a sundown town (not saying that’s what caused Trump to relocate there but not ruling it out). To this day, most of the Black domestic workers in Palm Beach make their way across the bridge to West Palm Beach. Making Trump out to be a white savior doesn’t stand up to any introspection. Ask all the Black officials he’s ousted from the military and the federal government since his return to the White House. Woodrow Wilson would have been proud.
“Trump did nothing to benefit the few Black residents of Palm Beach, which only recently had stopped being a sundown town (not saying that’s what caused Trump to relocate there but not ruling it out).”
Ted Kennedy always talked about these things, but never did a thing about it where he and the other Kennedy’s lived. You purposely slander Trump every time you can, yet he is one of the least racist people, and had more minorties and women in executive positions than most of the builders in NYC,
The Everglades Club and others wouldn’t let blacks and Jews in so I thank Trump for doing so, You should as well, but your mindset of victimhood doesn’t permit you.
enigma……..you are so full of yourself and so full of hate, especially for someone whose race makes up only 12% of the American population. And I’ll bet you’re the first one in line for all of the free stuff they hand out, so’s to keep you on the Dem’s Plantation.
Estovir……thank you, Drop Dead Gorgeous, for the shout-out! I’m honored.
Estovir…..excellent comment!
Estovir……Excellent comment!
“partisan gerrymandering is just as racist”? how is this thought possibly in a human head?
Because partisan goals are often achieved by “cracking and packing” minority districts with the express goal of breaking up the Black or Latino vote to maximize white control. How did you think they designed districts?
https://todayscommunique.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Lets-Talk-Gerrymandering_080525-2.pdf
The problem for the Democrats with this new decision is that it removes a powerful weapon from their arsenal—one that the GOP could never legally wield themselves. Racial gerrymandering in favor of non-minorities was already illegal; the only kind that was permitted, and in many cases actually required, was gerrymandering in favor of minorities. Recent demographics show that 60–80% of Black, Asian, and Hispanic voters align with the Democrats, while only about 41% of white voters do. Therefore, “racial gerrymandering” was a powerful tool for the Democrats—one they could mandate in states they didn’t control, and which the GOP was legally prohibited from employing in their own favor, even where they controlled the redistricting process.
If examined with even minor attention to detail, the Democrats’ talking points are generally less about racial equality under the law than they are about redistributing power to their supporters. They show little concern for the rights of non-minorities, at least those likely to support the GOP. Their arguments on this topic are more about political expediency than morality. Thus, racial discrimination in favor of their supporters is “A-OK,” but racial discrimination in favor of their opponents is a gross violation of human rights. Logically, you cannot have it both ways, but politicians seldom let themselves be constrained by logic.
Now, the Supreme Court says political gerrymandering is still permissible (a stance I personally disagree with, both practically and morally). However, at the very least, that perspective does not grant one side an inherent legal edge—both parties can utilize it in states where they control the process. Perhaps, eventually, both sides will agree to outlaw the practice to protect themselves from future surprises.
(Note: I am not suggesting Republicans cannot be guilty of similar tactics in other areas, but those areas are not the topic of today’s article.)
But Turley’s article is about the Court’s perceived color blindness across many topics like admissions and gerrymandering.
Except, he conveniently leaves our racial profiling. You can’t write an article making such a broad, sweeping claim and then cherrypick the topics that support your claim without addressing those topics which clearly run directly contrary to it. It is sloppy at best and outright conservative propaganda at worst.
This is not a normative judgment on the merits of racial profiling, but the Court that created Kavanaugh stops cannot honestly be deemed colorblind.
Maybe racial considerations in college admissions are not the same as dealing with groups of men hanging around outside Home Depot. Duh!
Racial profiling is a thing of the past. The problem is, the Dems and some minority types cling to past narratives for perceived advantage. Racial profiling didn’t end with a bang, it was gradually phased out over decades of policing. That makes it harder to perceive the thorough change that has happened. However, if you watch policing YouTubes with a dispassionate, objective lens, you’ll see that what I’m saying is true.
Dear Prof Turley,
Lol @ ‘racial gerrymandering’. Presumably, you mean ‘Democrat’ gerrymandering since traditionally people of ‘color’ tend to vote the Democrat ‘ticket’.
Presently, there are only two (2) ways of gerrymandering voters. Democrats and/or Republicans. Everybody else, including Independents (the majority of voters, by far.), can go suck an egg. Only Republicans or/and Democrats can win elections to high office in America. .. and its been that way for around 150 years.
[*note. Sen. Bernie Bro is an ‘Independent’, but he’s from Vermont and mostly plots with the Democrats.]
It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by two proprietary political organizations.
‘There are no blue states, there are no red states .. . there is only the United States’ ~ Obama, Democrat President of color
*in any case, Bill Clinton, the first black president, effectively ended racial discrimination. ..
You clearly didn’t read the gerrymandering case. Alito actually thinks that “traditionally” there was LESS correlation than today between party and race. He of course makes this claim and bases his entire opinion on it, without so much as a reference to statistics which would back it up.
Shameful.
Use mathematics when constructing districts. There’s always a minority in a majority/minority system. If government were limited to laws affecting 100% of the total population as citizens then minority issues aren’t present. Is that known as consensus? It either is or isn’t. Pareto likes an 80/20 split as mathematics also shows.
What would the legality be if a state held elections, then drew the maps afterwards in a partisan manner so that one party gets far more seats than they should? People would call that illegal. Gerrymandering is not that much different. It is an affront to our freedom.
Political parties are an affront to my sensibilities.
Imo, each state should maintain an open public data base of any/all candidates for public office. Candidate with most votes wins, whether they want to or not. No ‘running’ for office, no political advertisements.
*think of the savings!
I’m pretty sure that if you decide to boost turnout by skin color, you’ll get your increase. Prioritize any immutable trait and you can build a machine around it. But notice what almost nobody in either party wants to prioritize: the capacity for self‑government. The Founders did not design a system to be run by the loudest demographic slice; they built it on the idea that a free people would discipline themselves, think beyond tribe, and accept responsibility for the laws they vote in. If we keep organizing politics around racial turnout metrics instead of forming citizens who can actually govern themselves, the maps will change but the dysfunction won’t.
Democrats and their propaganda media are still reeling from the discovery of the shocking-but-verified SPLC’s funding of the KKK and White Supremacists.
Yet, Dime Store Obama Jeffries doesn’t seem bothered by that at all.
And the prospect of Republicans picking up 20+ seats in the House is making him soil his little panties.
But all reasonable people can see that Democrats have been the true racists all along, including before, during and since the Civil War.
The only difference is, now they use their fake concern for racism and discrimination for political and financial gain.
With DEI and wokeness dead or dying, and the prospect of illegal aliens not voting for them due to deportations and pending Voter ID laws, Democrats are REALLY panicking.
And, just like the SPLC, if Democrats can’t find any real racism going on, they’ll have to fund the myth themselves.
@Cliff
I appreciate this. It is 100% correct that they could not find any *truly* significant racism (not to say that it doesn’t exist) in the 21st century, so they have paid for and manufactured it. Honestly: these days, at least 80% of us are past all of that, it simply doesn’t matter. The modern left do not have policy, they do not represent anything but their own, generational, ingrained, aristocratic, and yes, often *white*, fantasies, and they have the temerity to accuse others of behaving like royalty. Pathetic.
New Hampshire: 46% Republican, zero Republican representatives
New Mexico: 45% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Maine: 43% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Delaware: 42% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Rhode Island: 41% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Connecticut: 40% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Massachusetts: 35% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Hawaii: 29% Republican, zero Republican representatives
Vermont: 24% Republican, zero Republican representatives
this is a lazy way to think about it. Where geographically do the supporters of each party live in each respective state?
The Democrats and Socialists are always shouting, demonstrating and demanding equal rights for minorities. The Supreme Court just gave them what they were demanding, equal representation in the voting. The Democrats and Socialists are upset that the court gave them what they wanted, to make things equal. Now the same groups are saying that they have been denied fair treatment and call for the packing of the court so they can get what they want, which ironically is what they just got. EQUALITY.
Excuse me for being confused. Or is it that the party screaming for equality, does not want equality, they want discrimination based on their ideals which are, unconstitutional.
Well they were insincere about that too. dems changed their minds because they realized equality won’t get them victim votes so now it’s equity -lots more ‘victims’ of having less stuff than you. The party of “any division works for us”.
Now you know why they let all them illegals in.
I guess I have misinterpreted the meaning of each, equality and equity while understanding the basics. Looking them up in Merriam Webster dictionary, they have a lot of cross meanings, from Merriam Webster “Equity and equality share the same ultimate Latin root, but they split the meaning down the middle (so to speak), carving two distinct nouns that nevertheless do have some overlap in meaning.” I am a simple person that does not like to “split things down the middle so to speak”. This creates divisions. For example where does the constitution say that every one must have the same equity? Where I am pretty sure it says or implies everyone is equal. This is the problem with identifying as a particular group, or tribe as the preferred word now. The Socialists are calling for equality, everyone has the same, except for those in power who end up with more. How can that be equity or equality?
They don’t want equality which is why they changed the language to “equity” meaning equal result not equal opportunity.
Yes..the Dems/Socialists/Lefties in this country are screamers, clutching their pearls. Each one tries to out-do the others with a spot-on Aunt Pittypat impression. It’s breathtaking to behold!
Gerrymandering a pizza is also unconstitutional.