Supreme Court deals a death blow to the Voting Rights Act
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί! -
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
What we need is end the single member only district system, un-cap the house, and where district boundries are used require that they mathematically the fewest counties and municipality as possible.
I would also argue independent commissions of technical experts who only use data saying how many people are in a given area and nothing else.
The Conservatives want to interpret the protected class policy as "we the government must be demographic blind." Alright here is a way to get fully blind. Don't come crying if the result is multi member districts that have representives proportional to the population
-
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί! -
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
To someone used to having others under heel, fairness can feel like oppression. It is a deeply unfortunate thing, but it's all the more reason that sadly, fairness has to be institutionalized and peoples rights must be explicitly protected by law. Because people of this sort sure wont treat everyone the same on their own unless the law forces them to. I truly wish we lived in a world where such laws were not needed, but here we are.
-
What we need is end the single member only district system, un-cap the house, and where district boundries are used require that they mathematically the fewest counties and municipality as possible.
I would also argue independent commissions of technical experts who only use data saying how many people are in a given area and nothing else.
The Conservatives want to interpret the protected class policy as "we the government must be demographic blind." Alright here is a way to get fully blind. Don't come crying if the result is multi member districts that have representives proportional to the population
We've had impartial computerized methods of creating fair districts for decades. It doesn't benefit those in power, who are the ones who would have to approve it.
A group should be formed, independent of state or federal, to form districts every few years based on population movement. If a party is disadvantaged by the makeup within that district, then they'll just have to work harder to try and sell themselves as a better choice. The role of a representative is a representation of that area, and should reflect their needs. Not some bigger party goal that needs the numbers.
-
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
Given the context, they probably meant something more like "So it only counts as discrimination if it's against white people?", and just worded it really badly.
Probably. They might just be an asshole.
-
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
What you should have said was nothing.
-
What we need is end the single member only district system, un-cap the house, and where district boundries are used require that they mathematically the fewest counties and municipality as possible.
I would also argue independent commissions of technical experts who only use data saying how many people are in a given area and nothing else.
The Conservatives want to interpret the protected class policy as "we the government must be demographic blind." Alright here is a way to get fully blind. Don't come crying if the result is multi member districts that have representives proportional to the population
Well, sure, but we also need to create some vacancies on the Supreme Court, which can be done in an additive fashion by packing the court, or in a subtractive fashion via… kinetic means.
Regardless, the Tribunal of Six must be shattered for most of the country to regain even the barest shred of faith in our judicial system. As it is now, it’s a complete joke, and very obviously a mechanism that’s rapidly exacerbating and expanding oligarchy and autocracy.
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί! -
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
Oh No! I'm used to have 99% power over politics and will now only have 98% power! Whatever will I do??
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
Are we great again yet? Can it stop?
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
Sherman should have destroyed everything south of D.C. Then, every Confederate politician, military commander and plantation owner should have been hanged.
-
Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
It's not discrimination against white people, you obtuse asshole. It's having 4 majority white districts vs 2 majority non-white districts (67%-33%) in a state with a 55%-45% ratio.
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
Tired of the endless "who can be the biggest piece of shit" competition we seem to have going on here. You all win okay?
-
Personally I more think we need to dismantle the party system we have. Political Parties should form and dissolve fluidly and be more akin to social clubs not actual bodies to dictate policy
-
Sherman should have destroyed everything south of D.C. Then, every Confederate politician, military commander and plantation owner should have been hanged.
-
Sherman should have destroyed everything south of D.C. Then, every Confederate politician, military commander and plantation owner should have been hanged.
There's still time...
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
The supreme court is an illegitimate institution that regularly declares itself arbiter of things it has no business in. It has effectively become first among "equals" in a government of increasingly questionable legitimacy. Doesn't matter whether they do something "good" or "bad" we shouldn't view them as having any legitimate authority in the first place -- Certainly not in elections.
Today they have a voice in gerrymandering. Tomorrow? Will they declare lottery elections illegitimate? More Money is speech nonsense? Can't Tax political donations? Can't tax political advertising? There are ways to make the government legitimate and give it consent of the governed -- but we cannot allow corrupt oligarchs to tell us what is and isn't legitimate.
-
The Supreme Court’s six-to-three Republican-appointed majority issued a staggering ruling on Wednesday essentially killing the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, dealing a death blow to the country’s most important civil rights law. The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Louisiana v. Callais strikes down the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana and in so doing narrows Section 2 of the VRA to the point of irrelevance, making it nearly impossible to prove that a gerrymandered map violates the right of voters of color.
“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.”
sigh. what more can i say.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Εγγραφή Σύνδεση