When will the lefty propagandists (and sheeple followers) learn that the "GOP" Court is waaaaaay less political than they want/need it to be to fit their agenda of destroying every American institution? (Asking for a friend.)
Once Again, That "GOP" SCOTUS Refuses to Act Like a "GOP" SCOTUS
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
When will the lefty propagandists (and sheeple followers) learn that the "GOP" Court is waaaaaay less political than they want/need it to be to fit their agenda of destroying every American institution? (Asking for a friend.)
The leftists need a political judiciary.that agrees with them. When they don’t get one, they shout that the court is illegitimate.
The Court barely, just barely, declined to overrule precedent. They can't seem to make up their minds.
Even “can’t make up their mind” is far different than “court shills doing the bidding of the GOP.”
define illegitimate.
the fact that right wing billionaires have used their money to pack the court with judges who will back right wing billionaires and corporations over everyone else, seems the definition of illegitimate to me.
if govt is allowed to be bought, 100% chance it will be.
thus it was.
and right wing billionaires are the ones who engineered money to be able to buy it.
of course it wasn't personal. just business.
the ruling in question in this thread, which is a very minor win for black voters in the grand scheme of things, shows the court realizes it's ILLEGITIMACY has been exposed, and is trying to take some heat off itself by allowing a minor win for the concept of democracy..
Oh, brother. Back away and sober up.
Holy shit. Let’s not pretend the right have acted with any grace vis a vis the federal bench.
I mean, I appreciate the chutzpah.
Disagree, I agree with Thomas's dissent:
These cases “are yet another installment in the ‘disastrous misadventure’ of this Court’s voting rights jurisprudence.” Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U. S. 254, 294 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 893 (1994) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment)). What distinguishes them is the uncommon clarity with which they lay bare the gulf between our “color-blind” Constitution, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting), and “the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act.” Holder, 512 U. S., at 907 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). The question presented is whether §2 of the Act, as amended, requires the State of Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population. Section 2 demands no such thing, and, if it did, the Constitution would not permit it.
ETA: I disagree with this on two levels. The first being that I don't believe any racial group in the US is entitled to having lines drawn to ensure they get represenatation because I don't think representation in this instance is race based. A Tim Scott represents my viewpoint more than a Gavin Newsom. I would be willing to bet for a vast amount of the "disenfranchised" voters in the Supreme Court case, the same would be true (the person who doesn't share their skin color most represents their political beliefs). Ergo, I don't believe this was truly a case based on race. Which leads to point two, why should black people in certain states singularly be immune to gerrymandering?
That is what this is about, the viewpoint that in order to get representation, blacks must be in districts where a Democrat has a better chance to win. To my point above, if you are a black supporter of a white conservative, the Supreme Court is saying that districts must be redrawn to make sure you get a Gavin Newsom or a Cori Bush so that you can be fairly treated. That is nonsensical.
The truth of the matter is that gerrymandering exists in almost every state and that the lines are drawn by the party in charge to make sure they have the best chances to win as many elections as possible. The lines are drawn not because of how many blacks are in those areas, they were drawn because of how many Democrats were. If those were white Democrats the lines would be exactly the same. If they were black Republicans they would be different. If Democrats were in charge they would look to have drawn lines to weaken Republican districts. That is how it works. If someone wants to challenge that system, have at it but I really take issue with saying that only one racial group is to be taken into consideration when "protecting" someone's vote from that process.
Kavanaugh was wrong as was Roberts (something he in particular has gotten good at over the years).
Last edited:
Another hyper-partisan SC ruling. 8-1 in favor of the Biden Administration.
Infuriating. Democrats and Republicans are not playing the same game when it comes to SCOTUS appointments. Democrats view it a legislative instrument and appoint accordingly.
Republicans cling to this quaint notion of a judiciary that has respect for the constitution and law and they lose because of it.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Affirmative action decision should be coming out any day now. Probably will deserve its own thread.
Well. “In favor of the Biden administration “ is not exactly right.
The court held the Biden Administration has authority to screw things up and the states can’t seek judicial review of those screw-ups. . I agree with the decision.
you obviously have zero grasp of the agendas of "conservatives" who hold $way over SCOTUS nominees.
we can start with Citizens United, though no doubt the list is long.
billionaires don't make business decisions for non business reasons.
