Posted on 06/28/2022 2:24:47 PM PDT by Hieronymus
The U.S. Supreme Court has put a temporary hold on a lower court's order for the creation of a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Wouldn’t that be racist?
Why would NPR want to be excerpted? It is for the public.
Real question is: where do politicians get off creating voting districts based on race? That is the very epitome of racism.
Not a shock, as they already did this for Alabama some time earlier. Net change by 538’s calculations is no net change in seats that are 5+ Republican, (though within these seats there has been a marked increase in seats that are 15+ Republican and a decrease in those that are 5-15+.
Democrats, while increasing their net seats of 5+ by 6 seats have decreased the number that are safe while greatly increasing the number that are marginal, led by a complete role of the dice in Nevada and New Mexico in attempts to run the table that could backfire badly.
The number of highly competitive seats has dropped by 6. It also is bad to be a white Democratic politician, but we already knew that.
Why would NPR want to be excerpted? It is for the public.
I have no idea. My question is more: would this organization be ticked to be posted on FR? And if so, are they on either “don’t post” or “post only in excerpts”?
I have no idea, and do not care to learn how to find out, so I figure excerpt.
There were only three stories when I looked, and one of them was NYT—I hate posts that link to paywall stuff.
:: Real question is: where do politicians get off creating voting districts based on race? ::
You have to ask?
They simply can’t use the term “plantation” anymore.
completely unconstitutional to reserve a district for BLACKS only.
And offensive.
The picture says all that needs to be said about NBC “news.”
Gerrymandering.
It is, but in the long run, racial Gerrymandering mostly backfires.
In fact in the long run, unintended consequences tend to have much more effect than people anticipate.
538 had a nice article that I can’t find right now about how the NYC House delegation was majority Jewish in the early 80’s, and depending on how things shake out in the primary, may end up being entirely Goy after this year.
If one carves up things between African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians—especially while trying to keep pockets of conservative Jewish neighbourhoods from ending up with conservative non-Jewish neighbourhoods that might be adjacent, there are unintended consequences.
Doesn’t this mean the judge is promoting a democrat district, exclusively demanding a democrat be elected from the district ?. If I were black I’d be offended.
Voting districts law is a snarled mess.
In past, some courts have said that *both* individual races must be concentrated into their own districts, to *insure* that somebody from their race gets the seat; AND, other courts have said that races can’t be concentrated in districts, because that might *deny* them a chance to have more than one or two seats.
Of course, in *both* cases, these rulings were made to benefit black voters. Blatant discrimination to advantage one race over others.
It has to be hashed out by the SCOTUS, but no easy task. Whoever writes the opinion will have to include all sorts of references.
The lawyers who claim that there is such a thing as “Black voters” that somehow have to have their own niche of rights are the racists, in my opinion.
These black majority districts began with the voting rights law passed in 1965. The Justice Dept began enforcing majority-minority districts with reapportionment in 1970. As a result most liberal areas including whites in the South were concentrated in majority minority districts.
The general theory is that a third or so of Louisianans are black, and so a third (two) of the districts ought to be majority black.
The 2nd District (composed of bits of Baton Rouge and New Orleans with a connecting corridor) is Majority black and +56 D (78-22 split).
The other five districts are more balanced—mostly around +40 R, but with one that is “only” a bit over +20 R (which still amounts to an expected result of about 38-62). Creating two 58-42 Dem districts wouldn’t requiring a rocket scientist.
In a sane world, I believe that New Orleans and a couple of appropriate suburbs would be a strong democratic district, but not +56, and Baton Rouge would be the centre of a fairly close district that would keep sending a variety of people first to congress and then to prison, some one whom would be Pubs, some of whom would be Dems that look like Obama’s sons but aren’t as weird as people from Chicago or Hawaii, and some of whom would be Dems who look like Garth Brooks politically.
(Obligatory link to Callin’ Baton Rouge)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDnJcvM6wrU
The same issue is up for grabs in Alabama, where they have loads of rocket scientists anyway, and if it flies will like reverberate for South Carolina.
The pre-clearance requirement for some southern states was thrown out because the justices rightly pointed out that sixty years after the Civil Rights acts were passed, it was a equal protection infringement on those states to treat their redistricting as especially racist as opposed to other states, and if the DOJ or Congress wanted a pre-clearance requirement, they had to provide new evidence to support it.
Now they have to decide if "no diluting" minority votes means maximizing the majority minority districts. Hopefully a majority will decide we've enough of 60 years of racial casuistry.
Please explain. I am sure this means something, but I have no idea what.
While I have roots that go far back into the South, they were transplanted about a century ago to the west after a last stop in Southern Missouri, and I have relocated to as close as you can get to rural Alabama culturally while living in Ontario. In addition, I went Galt culturally about 30 years ago, and prior to that was mostly rural west by exposure.
I can learn and explain politics, and Louisiana is fascinating, but I don’t do movies or the like.
You probably haven’t seen Caddyshack then. It applies to the author’s surname of Wang. In the scene Rodney says “Hey Wang, what’s with the pictures? It’s a parking lot.”
I was just seeing if anyone could piece the picture to the article.
If you haven’t seen Caddyshack, it makes no sense.
I’m bored...
Roberts isn’t all bad (few people are) but he is unreliable and disappointing.
Still, he is valuable because potential 6-3 decisions are more powerful, and because it allows for fairly good decisions when others among the 6 have their own views. There was a 5-4 yesterday that doesn’t strike me as a particularly left-right decision which saw Thomas and Alito on opposite sides, ( with Gorusch, the wise Latina, and the two non-Catholics (who happen to identify as non-Goy) together making the majority.
I trust Thomas more than Alito, and trust no one else in high position in any of the three branches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.