Supreme Court allows states to use unlawfully gerrymandered congressional maps in the 2022 midterm elections

submitted by [deleted] from theconversation.com

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IkeConn 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I hope Republicans drew them.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Such redistricting can lead to racial gerrymandering, which can diminish the power of racial groups and is unconstitutional or unlawful under federal law.[But Repiglicans did it anyway, and then packed the Supreme Court with Repiglicans.] It can also result in partisan gerrymandering, which gives an advantage to one party or the other. This may violate state law, but unlike racial gerrymandering, it does not violate federal law or the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court decided in 2019.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Political parties in the majority have always had a lot of leeway in drawing electoral districts.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Especially in Red states, which is most of them, where hillbillies rule, the old boy networks, the lynch mobs, knuckle-draggers, low brows, "Christian" "right", KKK, 'Murican taliban, etc, etc.

The most gerrymandered states in the US in 2022: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states

The gerrymander of most states: https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/11/great-southern-gerrymander-continues-2016

The Supreme Court - packed [illegally] with right-wing hacks - allowed for one of the most unethical, anti-democratic practices in US history, ensureing anotehr death of the American dream for most people, as we all deserve to live in a a representative democracy, if only the Supreme Court didn't snatch that away from us.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Old man user Crustybutt yells at clouds. Do you even have anything important to say except pejorative cliches? I almost thought you were a Quora ai/shill.

ensureing anotehr death of the American dream for most people

This is going in the "cringe" folder, though the hysterics and histrionics are a commendable effort.

/tips fedora

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

One of the dumbest ad hominem responses I've read in a while. If you have an argument and evidence, mention them.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

One of the dumbest ad hominem responses

Oh, please. I don't have time for your non-sense.

death of the American dream for most people

OH MY GAWD. IT'S ALL OVER FOR US!!!! Hahahahaha.../facepalm

Prove ad hominem. Life-hack: you can't. I almost thought you were Socks, but at least he tried a little harder. You don't try at all. If you have irrefutable evidence of a redneck revolution, please post your substantiating proof. Otherwise it looks like you are just another shill. Please collect your shekels at the door...can you please just keep your astroturfing on Quroa/Reddit/Twitter or whatever Normie platform you lurk on? it's soooo...obvious...and your tactics, and your "responses" and your "message". We're not all fking stupid, we gotta hire better "people" than >>>you<<<.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So your response is additional idiotic ad hominem and absolutely nothing about my points or post. You're a good example of the completely delusional retarded Republican base. Again, if you have an argument and evidence, mention them.

[–]Velocity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What you're saying then is that you actually are a Socks alt? Welcome back my mentally unstable left wing nutty-buddy!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No one knows what you're talking about. I don't know anything about you. The topic is the Supreme Court. Should Saidit instead be a circle jerk of its users? Boring....

[–]socks-the-nigger 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

😯

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

None of this is even remotely illegal.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

False. The article obviously explains that partisan gerrymandering was made legal by the Supreme Court, though that is in fact racial gerrymandering, which is still illegal. It's not that difficult to understand.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You say it's illegal. No court has found that to be true. In fact, the article states the opposite: "Supreme Court allows..."

What you're trying to do is analogous to Second Amendment advocates calling the NFA illegal. Based on their reading of the Constitution, it is. But that's one, minority interpretation.

All that aside, with the nation's largest minority voting en bloc for one party (out of their own festering racism IMO), there's no meaningful distinction that can be drawn between racial gerrymandering and political gerrymandering anyway.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

More nonsense. Just read the article, or also consider the obvious ethical implications. It's really easy to understand. Here:

Such redistricting can lead to racial gerrymandering, which can diminish the power of racial groups and is unconstitutional or unlawful under federal law.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What would you have the Supreme Court do?

Draw the map itself? Surely that would be a greater miscarriage of justice.

Use preexisting maps? They don't have the right number of districts.

Postpone elections? Send things back to the legislature? Without district boundaries, you can't have candidates or a campaign. November is five months from now.

It's honestly scary that such an article could be published and taken seriously.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OK - good questions.

1st - to uphold the law that "racial gerrymandering... is unconstitutional or unlawful under federal law," continue the law that was in place until 2019 that examined partisan gerrymandering for biases that include class, party, race, and other manipulations. It should be possible to challenge gerrymandering practices, in order to assure fair a fair cross-section of democratic voters in every district.Before 2019, it was illegal to make those divisions along party lines, and thereby disenfranchise minority party (Dem or Rep) voters in districts. If the Supreme Court would continue to require states to arrange fair voting districts - those that are divided because of population percentages, rather than rednecks vs the educated - this would improve the democratic process rather than limit it to a specific party (Rep or Dem).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that affirming things like that is probably on hold while this supposedly cataclysmic reconsideration of Roe v. Wade plays out. That's one of the most frustrating things about the judicial process. It is slow.

This is particularly frustrating for people like you who want things to be as democratic as possible. I don't. I just want shit to work.