Posted on 07/21/2023 4:32:48 PM PDT by CFW
Alabama seems to have defied an order from the Supreme Court by passing a redistricting map that only included one majority black district instead of two on Friday.
The Supreme Court agreed with a lower-level federal court in its order for the state to include two districts that had largely black populations among its voting-aged residents. But the map that was agreed upon by both chambers included one majority black district and one district that was 40% black. Black districts largely vote Democrat.
The move was criticized by state Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers, and the executive branch. Democrats claimed that the move only continued the state's history of alleged voter suppression.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“order for the state to include two districts that had largely black populations among its voting-aged residents”
How the heck did SCOTUS miss the obvious unconstitutionality of that racist kind of order?
Yes! If Jo Jo and his RATs can do it, the GOP should have the same privilege. Now the GOP needs to start defying ALL Feral “courts” and “judges”. They all are corrupt.
Traitor Roberts and his four buddies to the left have no credibility anymore.
All they need to do is run a black Republican in the 40% district, unless the Supreme Court ruling also requires that the winner in that district also be a Democrat.
...and why not, given what this country has become.
“...four buddies to the left ....”
I guess Amy Conehead Barrett and Anthony “Kav” Kennedy Jr. take turns being the fourth.
Largely and Majority are two different things.
The 2nd district is 40% Black. That is “Largely” Black, its just not majority Black.
Where in the constitution does it give the SC the right to make such declarations?
While everyone was in LaLa land over the affirmative action and student loan decisions, SCOTUS completely eff’d the entire country.
Moore v Harper. NC legislature took a decision by the former NC Court to SCOTUS. NC court said that the redistricting put in effect by the legislature was unfair. Legislature countered that the Constitution clearly states that election matters are up to the state legislature.
SCOTUS disagreed with that and said that they have a say in elections. Someone feel free to correct me, but during the 2020 election and aftermath, didn’t SCOTUS punt on all the cases saying that they were a state matter and the court didn’t have jurisdiction over elections unless there was some sort of civil rights violation from the Voting Act?
Had SCOTUS sided with the legislature, as it should have given that the language is pretty clear, it would mean that a state like Wisconsin could completely change its statewide offices. Wisconsin, for being considered a Blue State, has a sizable Republican majority in its state legislature. So much so, that the Senate is veto proof and the House is one seat shy. Meaning the Gov, Lt Gov, AG, SOS would have no say in anything they did to ensure clean elections. No Elias showing up and suing anyone over anything to tilt the vote.
Looks like Alabama realizes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not SCOTUS.
There’s no longer any legal or legitimate need for any district to be drawn for racial means. With the election of you-know-who in 2008, that destroyed the last reasoning that Blacks could not be elected to office without deliberately drawing the lines. We’ve got Black Demonrats and Republicans representing White majority seats across the nation. Black Senators from White states. The VRA district in my state for TN-9 has sent a White Demonrat from a heavily Black seat since 2006. The residents have refused for 2 decades to elect a Black candidate.
It’s time to end a 1960s solution to a 1960s problem that no longer exists in the 2020s.
If the Dems can repeatedly ignore the constitution so can we!! It is about time our side got some balls!!! Alabama is right on this it is up to the state legislators not the SCOTUS!!
Why not?! Democrats do it (flout/circumvent) court rulings all the time.
Yeah. Kennedy left a long time ago.
This crap is so tiring. The city I live near just had a vote in several areas for annexation into the city limits. The only thing the black city councilmen cared about was if the black population would be diluted by bringing in too many white people. They would not support the annexation unless enough black areas were included to even out the numbers. It’s ridiculous.
Not sure how the ruling will impact the country, but there was issue with the case. NC law allows the NC SC to order the redrawing of the district map. So we voted out the RATS and the new court ruled the court no longer had that right. But they allowed the case to go forward. It should have ended it. The NC SC had the right to do what it did and SCOTUS agreed. It was a bad case to challenge courts drawing the districts instead of the legislative branch.
This is a very good thing. It is the beginning of the Constructive Session we need to survive. It can help us chop away the greedy maggots in the blue states.
The morons in the Blue states might wish for a shooting Civil War, but we are too smart for that. This time it will be fought in the Courts and with passive resistance.
This will not be easy or a brief fight; but if we are to survive we have to separate ourselves from them.
Thank you for the explanation.
Since hearing about it, I guess my hope was, that if one were to take the Constitution for what it says, the legislature makes the rules. And that would prevent any Court from allowing whatever Elias, the Left and the Democrats from doing what they want.
Good.
Remember Ted Kennedy’s Voting Rights Legislation that only applied to certain Southern States? That was unconstitutional even tho the courts upheld it and was probably the basis for another unconstitutional decision.
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.