Ramifications from the Supreme Court’s surprise Thursday decision to preserve the Voting Rights Act’s protection against racial gerrymanders are already developing in a related case out of Georgia.
I would love to see this blow up and return control of the House to the Democrats. The election(s) are still a long ways off, but we’ll see.
Is this the beginning of the Roberts Court rehabilitation tour? Has SCOTUS decided it’s done enough damage to last them a little while?
The “We re only so crooked” tour but close enough…
No. They achieved the purpose of helping get a republican speaker in '24, but decided also that things are hot right now.
No. The arguments pro-gerrymander were just too lame, this time. Alabamastan has 18 months to try again with the court.
It’s almost as if they thought the fix was in, and they didn’t need to actually work for the win. The Dread Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t strike me as someone who appreciates laziness in those who appear before him.
I think it’s more “don’t make me look like a complete assclown by giving you this–make it plausible, or at least bury it in gobbledegook”.
and they didn’t need to actually work for the win
Well, sometimes the judge does do all the work for you, like when Aileen Cannon grabbed arguments they made in press conferences but never asserted in court and ruled on that basis. Good thing her name’s out of the news now, right?
And I’m sure she’s grateful for the chance to let enough water pass under the bridge so people don’t remember her epic self-beclowning … ah, hang on a sec …
Well, dammit! How about the egregious case that the previous NC Supreme Court ruled on, and the SCOTUS sent back to the new NCSC which is now Rethug majority, and so they said that gerrymandering is just fine?
The problem here is despite the ruling being supportive of VRA it also underscores how nakedly partisan the court is so much so that faith in justice is obliterated. It is so evident there will be no justice.
The Robert’s court will be known as deeply corrupt, from LeoLeonards FederalIstSociety billions to the Crowes & funneling of millions to SCOTUS spouses. Robert’s hypocrisy is blinding and KetanjiBrown has put LED lights on his greed.
ThankGod for Brown being the brilliant jurist she is and having the acumen to present cogent legal arguments that dismantle all their “originalist” poppycock and makes mockery of prior rulings where SCOTUS is overturning SCOTUS own rulings within months of making them.
I suspect her mind is so agile & strategic Robert’s leadership as Chief has been seriously diminished as she cuts a swath through him, Alito, Gorusch & Kavanaugh such that they write rants for dissent with all types of “nanner nanner” legalese.
Go Ketanji!!...turn Robert’s court upside down like a CAT 5 storm! …or as RBG said, dissent/argue in a way they want to agree with you.
In listing the states where this may have potentially important implications for House delegations, what about North Carolina? Isn’t the redistricting and the impact on minority representation the precise issue their Supreme Court is reconsidering?
Yo, Sparkles – I had to read your post a couple of times before I realized that your reference to “brilliant jurist Brown” actually meant Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Just sayin’.
I was coming over here to ask this same question.
And lets not forget about DeSantis’s Machiavellian Florida redistricting map, which was so over the top, even his own party said No Dice. He overruled them.
And the mangling of Nashville in Tennessee.
I know there must be a reason, but why doesn’t this affect Florida’s Desantis congressional map that yielded 4 seats by dismantling black districts in the northern part of the state?
I’ve see the other states mentioned, and don’t understand how Florida’s situation is different.
My apology. I hope it was not offensive. As I meant none. I simply couldn’t recalll in the moment Jackson. I presumed Ketanji would convey the SCOTUS jurist Ketanji BrownJackson as I refer to her immediately preceeding saying Brown. Sorry,
I get a weird vibe off of Roberts’ smile, as if he’s about to cry instead. Or maybe he’s just in pain that the rest of don’t share his so-obviously-correct values. But it’s one of those smiles that’s more of a frown.
C’mon, Sparkles. I’m not that thin-skinned. I was just noting, that’s all. (if there were a way to have done it privately, I would have.) That being said, the substance of your post was right on point. As a lawyer, I appeared before Judge Jackson once and she was a delight: smart, quick, and a sense of humor. She’s really where she belongs.
Ok…great. We totally agree, she’s where she needs to be.