417

Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s attempt to avoid creating a second Black majority congressional district (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an emergency bid from Alabama, setting the stage for a new congressional map likely to include a second Black majority district to account for the state’s 27% Black population.

The one-line order reflects that the feelings on the court haven’t changed since June when a 5-4 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court that had ordered the state to redraw its seven-seat congressional map to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

There were no noted dissents.

The case has been closely watched because after the court’s June ruling, Alabama GOP lawmakers again approved a congressional map with only one majority-Black district, seemingly flouting the Supreme Court’s decision that they provide more political representation for the state’s Black residents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

So to recap:

AL: "Look these maps are totally fine"

SCOTUS: "Nope, redraw them"

AL: "You're the last person I thought would say that, but alright fine. We've made adjustments to comply."

Another court: "No you didn't, you just changed proportions in a way that's unlikely to have any effect"

AL: "Nah it's totally fine!"

Another court: "No it's not. An independent entity will draw the maps since you racist fucks are incapable"

AL: "That is unfair, these maps are fine! Tell them, SCOTUS!"

SCOTUS: "Nope we're not getting involved. The maps are still bad."

...

Seriously though I'm confused why the Court is being... agreeable.

[-] Wenchette@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

"You're the last person I thought would say that" 😂😂😂

[-] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's not funny. That's sad.

[-] Wenchette@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Sometimes you have to choose between laughing and crying 😒

[-] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Fair enough. I do frequently have to laugh so I don't cry.

[-] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

They have enough bad press as it is. Don't want another reason for Congress to start regulating their bribes.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think here going to try and make their own code of ethics first. That's the impression I get from Kagan and Kavanaugh commenting. It should be interesting to see if the highest court in the land tries weasel words.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The point of the federalist society isn't to just smash and grab power overtly everywhere all at once. They know they can still get the legislative results they want with Alabama having a second black district.

So they aren't going to waste political capital on it.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

With the margins that in the House currently it could very well change who holds the House, and accordingly the legislative results.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023

417 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19104 readers

1963 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News