• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,073
Reaction score
82,300
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

91222902-copy.jpg


6/25/18
The Supreme Court sided with Texas Republicans Monday, ruling that the 2013 redrawing of legislative and congressional maps was not racially motivated in all except one case. The 5-4 decision was made along party lines, with the conservative majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, authoring the court’s opinion. This decision effectively negates a three-judge panel’s conclusion last summer, which stated several district lines were unconstitutional, intentionally discriminating against minority voters. In a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the conservative judges argued that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “does not apply to redistricting.” The four liberal Supreme Court justices published a harsh dissent. Written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the opinion argued that with this decision, the Supreme Court “goes out of its way” to allow racially discriminating district lines to persist in Texas. “This disregard of both precedent and fact comes at serious costs to our democracy,” wrote Sotomayor. “It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population within the State—will continue to be underrepresented in the political process.”
Click to expand...

If this topic was covered in another thread here at DP, my apologies.

Hardly surprising, the conservative (5/4) Supreme Court of Donald Trump rules that gerrymandering is just fine as long as the racial minority is the population group being disenfranchised.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

91222902-copy.jpg




If this topic was covered in another thread here at DP, my apologies.

Hardly surprising, the conservative (5/4) Supreme Court of Donald Trump rules that gerrymandering is just fine as long as the racial minority is the population group being disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

How would a racial minority be disenfranchised by a district map?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

91222902-copy.jpg




If this topic was covered in another thread here at DP, my apologies.

Hardly surprising, the conservative (5/4) Supreme Court of Donald Trump rules that gerrymandering is just fine as long as the racial minority is the population group being disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

We might as well have a mix of the Republican Freedom Caucus and the KKK grand wizards to impanel the Supreme Court seats.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

91222902-copy.jpg




If this topic was covered in another thread here at DP, my apologies.

Hardly surprising, the conservative (5/4) Supreme Court of Donald Trump rules that gerrymandering is just fine as long as the racial minority is the population group being disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

Tis is disgusting but not surprising. The Republicans - and that includes the majority on the Court - know that the GOP will have a hard time keeping power and winning free elections without such undemocratic cheating mechanisms as unfair gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics. So this is just Republicans covering the ass of other Republicans and using undemocratic methods to preserve their power over the majority.
 
Removable Mind said:
We might as well have a mix of the Republican Freedom Caucus and the KKK grand wizards to impanel the Supreme Court seats.
Click to expand...

So you have seen the Trump short list for future judicial nominees it would appear?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

91222902-copy.jpg




If this topic was covered in another thread here at DP, my apologies.

Hardly surprising, the conservative (5/4) Supreme Court of Donald Trump rules that gerrymandering is just fine as long as the racial minority is the population group being disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

Directly opposed to the recent ruling of this same court declaring that N. Carolina was obviously unconstitutional and it was.

I am thinking that Tex. has more electoral votes, so they get to 'even the score' and why the court is always partisan and
why they get put there or deny (Obama) his/our guy.
 
Not surprised, but disappointed.

It is my understanding that one district has to be redrawn but the others can stay, including one district Texas admitted race was a factor. This is a terrible road we are going down.
 
haymarket said:
So you have seen the Trump short list for future judicial nominees it would appear?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that Pootrumpkim has a nightmare list.

I’m also waiting for the announcement that Pootrumpkim will seek a no limit term for President, beginning with his own.
 
Fletch said:
How would a racial minority be disenfranchised by a district map?
Click to expand...

Because it was drawn substantially to eliminate that race and also thereby, find sufficient numbers of other races
much more likely to vote for their party member.

It is an old historical method used since Jim Crow, for the repubs (right) to pick their voters and why, Because 2/3 voters...don't pick them.
 
Removable Mind said:
I have no doubt that Pootrumpkim has a nightmare list.

I’m also waiting for the announcement that Pootrumpkim will seek a no limit term for President, beginning with his own.
Click to expand...

I suspect that there will be efforts in the coming years for Trump to find a way around the Constitution and its limitations on his length in office. In fact, I will be shocked if they do not attempt something to cancel or "temporarily postpone" elections in 2020.

With every week we move closer and closer to authoritarianism in this nation.
 
Pedestrian said:
Because it was drawn substantially to eliminate that race and also thereby, find sufficient numbers of other races much more like to vote for them.

It is a old historical method used since Jim Crow, for the repubs (right) to pick their voters and why, Because 2/3 voters...don't pick them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that rely upon the racist assumption that race determines party affiliation?
 
Fletch said:
Wouldn't that rely upon the racist assumption that race determines party affiliation?
Click to expand...

It might be unless one could point to data which shows a strong correlation between the two. Then it is not racism that is making the point but the hard data that does.
 
Removable Mind said:
We might as well have a mix of the Republican Freedom Caucus and the KKK grand wizards to impanel the Supreme Court seats.
Click to expand...

Stupid comment. Leave it to you to boil everything down to the most simplistic, uninformed position possible. No need to actually read the decision, just call those with whom you disagree racists.
 
haymarket said:
It might be unless one could point to data which shows a strong correlation between the two. Then it is not racism that is making the point but the hard data that does.
Click to expand...

So if data showed that white evangelicals overwhelmingly voted a certain way, it would be racist for the other party to create a district that limit their number?
 
Fletch said:
So if data showed that white evangelicals overwhelmingly voted a certain way, it would be racist for the other party to create a district that limit their number?
Click to expand...

Why would it be racist when the motivation according to you is religion?

Race is an involuntary condition of birth. Religion is not - it is a choice.
 
Fletch said:
So if data showed that white evangelicals overwhelmingly voted a certain way, it would be racist for the other party to create a district that limit their number?
Click to expand...

Texas GOP gets a win with Supreme Court ruling on alleged racial redistricting

A federal district court found that the state's plan was marred by racially discriminatory intent, watering down the voting power of the state's Latinos. The lower court ruled that the state failed to prove that its map did not discriminate. Experts said Democrats would likely have gained a seat in the House if the challengers had won. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a strongly worded dissent joined by the court's other liberals, said the ruling means that minority voters in Texas will continue to be underrepresented. "The fundamental right to vote is too precious to be disregarded in this manner," she wrote. Anthony Gutierrez of Common Cause Texas called the ruling a severe blow to voting rights. "It is time for Texans to take up the fight for fair maps by establishing an independent redistricting commission," he said.

"In a democracy, politicians have no business choosing their voters, it is the voters who should be choosing their politicians."
Click to expand...

The conservative SCOTUS judges are wonderfully oblivious to the obvious.
 
haymarket said:
Why would it be racist when the motivation according to you is religion?

Race is an involuntary condition of birth. Religion is not - it is a choice.
Click to expand...

So it would just be discrimination then, right?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Supreme Court Upholds District Lines in Texas

91222902-copy.jpg




If this topic was covered in another thread here at DP, my apologies.

Hardly surprising, the conservative (5/4) Supreme Court of Donald Trump rules that gerrymandering is just fine as long as the racial minority is the population group being disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

Pedestrian said:
Because it was drawn substantially to eliminate that race and also thereby, find sufficient numbers of other races
much more likely to vote for their party member.

It is an old historical method used since Jim Crow, for the repubs (right) to pick their voters and why, Because 2/3 voters...don't pick them.
Click to expand...

The map in this case was drawn by a court.

Supreme Court largely upholds maps in Texas case on racial gerrymandering
A lower court ruled last summer that the Texas congressional and legislative districts discriminated against black and Hispanic voters. But justices said the panel was wrong in how it considered the challenges.

 
The crybaby **** going on in this thread is amazing.

Hint: Its Texas. Democrats are not the majority, not even close. Republicans legislators didn't draw the district in question, the courts did.
 
How a state demarcates their districts is an absolute state's right under the Constitution. The federal government's involvement is a twentieth century Supreme Court creation.
 
Is it possible that they were interpreting something in the Texas constitution?

IN ours, it says "all districts shall be compact in form," but it's totally ignored. The SCOTUS could interpret our districts as not conforming to our own constitution. Not necessarily imposing a federal standard on a particular state, but it would force the State of Maryland to adhere to ITS OWN constitution.

P.S. for those of you down south who claim to be "strict constructionists" when it comes to the constitution, you might want to peruse the section that says the [U.S.] House of Representatives shall regulate the elections, etc., of its own members. Right there is the justification for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a case involving the gerrymandering of districts for the aforementioned U.S. House of Representatives.
 
Last edited:
The exact wording:

Art. I, Sec. 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

Did you read the ruling yourself? How do you know that it violated states' rights?
 
haymarket said:
I suspect that there will be efforts in the coming years for Trump to find a way around the Constitution and its limitations on his length in office. In fact, I will be shocked if they do not attempt something to cancel or "temporarily postpone" elections in 2020.

With every week we move closer and closer to authoritarianism in this nation.
Click to expand...

If he went that far some Americans might take it as a mandate to ensure that does not happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom