Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters’ Power

Flash said:
That subject was never discussed. We were talking about the legalities of racial gerrymandering.

Seems you are diverting to another topic attacking me for something I never discussed.
Click to expand...

it's the one I've been discussing.......go find someone who wants to discuss yours......
 
Nordberg said:
Gerrymandering is a terrible crime against our election system. Yet 4 "judges" voted to continue it. It is cheating people out of the power of their votes.
Click to expand...

The 4 you're talking about are white supremacists - yes - Thomas, too. He's bought and paid for by the white supremacists.
 
BidenPresident said:
The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision, ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 ruling. He was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html
Click to expand...

I was not a bit surprised by Kavanaugh's vote. He is not a racist. He has never been racist or cruel in any of his rulings on the bench or his entire judicial history. He also had Black High School and College friends. Remember, they were willing to testify on his behalf during his nomination hearings?

This decision was about systemic racism and voter suppression. It's about civil rights. It's about voting rights.

This is about restoring portions of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme court previously struck down. OOPS! Everyone knew that was an over reach.

And I do not believe that Kavanaugh is loyal to the Federalists Society, even though (Yes, I Know), we've seen him at some of their gatherings before.

But they certainly do not own him- like they own the other 4 conservative judges- that voted to allow the illegal Gerrymandering to continue.

And obviously, Justice Roberts is not in bed with the Federalist Society either. :good4u: That is certainly good to know for all future reference and assurance.

Because this was a huge slap in the face and rejection of the Federalist Society, that has been making all the decisions, here of late, for this so-called Supreme Court that has been so supremely corrupted by their precious gifts, lavish vacations, and tons of money thrown their way.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
?????......I had it?....you must have me confused with some racist demmycrat from the 1950s.......I've never discriminated against anyone........so kindly go sit in the corner and abuse yourself for your racist guilt in silence....
Click to expand...

Your garbage rebuttle is irrelevant.

The point being that if you have almost 100% of white males inhabiting all jobs in management and below due to prohibitions against women and PoC holding those jobs, then, YES, discrimination and making sure women and PoC get priority access to those jobs to fix the imbalance is what should be done.

That or you go thru and fire ALL the white males who got the jobs they did not deserve, as they did not have to compete for them. FIre them all and then let the hiring operate without considering of race or gender now that issue is addressed and if firing them all is not not acceptable them give the women and PoC preferential access when equally qualified.

Yes.
 
QP! said:
Your garbage rebuttle is irrelevant.

The point being that if you have almost 100% of white males inhabiting all jobs in management and below due to prohibitions against women and PoC holding those jobs, then, YES, discrimination and making sure women and PoC get priority access to those jobs to fix the imbalance is what should be done.

That or you go thru and fire ALL the white males who got the jobs they did not deserve, as they did not have to compete for them. FIre them all and then let the hiring operate without considering of race or gender now that issue is addressed and if firing them all is not not acceptable them give the women and PoC preferential access when equally qualified.

Yes.
Click to expand...

your racism is even more extreme than I thought.......though I note you still pay lip service to "equally qualified"........I doubt in practice you apply it, however........it's hard to tell, given the fact that lib'rul men are rarely qualified at all......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
your racism is even more extreme than I thought.......though I note you still pay lip service to "equally qualified"........I doubt in practice you apply it, however........it's hard to tell, given the fact that lib'rul men are rarely qualified at all......
Click to expand...

And your stupidity is never ending.

The racism and sexism is in the creation of a system that says "white men only can apply', not in fixing that system.

The lack of qualifications happens when you say 'White men only can apply' and they get the jobs without having to compete with others. Fixing that problem is not the issue.


Everything you say is the old white guy common excuse of 'ok it was bad prior, yes white men got all the jobs via racism and sexism... but don't fix and leave it be and over a few generations is might balance out...eventually'.

Its an attempt to lock in ill gotten gains and preserve advantage for generations and it is obvious.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
liar......the most gerrymandered districts in any state are created to CREATE districts that send black congressmen to Washington.......the districts that were contested in this case were districts which were too "contiguous, compact and maintained a community of interests"......
Click to expand...

Current maps split the city of Montgomery into 2 districts. Are you saying one side of Montgomery has different interests than the other side?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no.....I am saying they could put all the blacks in the entire city in one district and they would still have just one district......
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, that is what the USSC just told them to do.

The current district has all of Birmingham and half of Montgomery. They can't put all of Montgomery and all of Birmingham in one district and still make it contiguous and meet the population requirements of equal districts.
Birmingham - 197,000 people
Montgomery - 197,000 people
Tuscalosa county - 236,000
Western suburbs of Birmingham - 200,000+

When they include all of Birmingham in one district and all of Montgomery in another district instead of one district with an over 30% Dem tilt, they will end up with 2 districts with a 10% Dem tilt as required by court ruling.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so the result will be no black districts......
Click to expand...

Mainly to give a minority party full control of the state like Florida is attempting to do. It's not about "no black districts" but "white control".

"Republicans; the White Heritage Party!"

7jpk3j.jpg
 
PostmodernProphet said:
we haven't had such a system in your lifetime.......cope.....
Click to expand...

Ya another concept I am going to force you to run off to google to study so you can come back and pretend you understood it, all along.

The 'Glass Ceiling' was still a very prominent thing well thru the 1980's and into the 1990's before most corporations implemented practices to reduce it. That means we still have all sorts of white males who got their jobs improperly as they did not have to face proper competition, and many of them would still be working and hiring today.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Mainly to give a minority party full control of the state like Florida is attempting to do. It's not about "no black districts" but "white control".

"Republicans; the White Heritage Party!"

7jpk3j.jpg
Click to expand...

PostmodernIdiot is arguing you do not fix this type of systemic corruption that has tilted the playing field massively to white people by then trying to rebalance to PoC and instead you leave it as it is and all those benefiting wrongly (white people) to keep that benefit, and let it fix naturally over time, which due to population demographics would take generations.

Their arguments are all about maintaining and locking in ill got gains which then provides secondary and third level gains as that cohort who got benefit wrongly increases generational wealth which then provides even more compounding benefits over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top