374
Clarence Thomas wants the Supreme Court to stop hearing cases on racist redistricting
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
374 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2147 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The high court’s 6-3 decision on Thursday effectively gives state lawmakers a roadmap for discriminating against Black voters when drafting congressional district boundaries, as long as they can say they were targeting their party affiliation, not their race.
In its monumental 1954 decision in Brown v Board of Education, the Supreme Court sought a “boundless view of equitable remedies” through “extravagant uses of judicial power” to end racist segregation, according to Justice Thomas.
“Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges,” arguing that the court’s “insistence” on hearing cases involving racist voter suppression “led it to develop doctrines that indulge in race-based reasoning inimical to the Constitution.”
Last year, a federal court tossed out South Carolina’s map after finding that the state’s First Congressional District – currently represented by Republican US Rep Nancy Mace – violated the Constitution by using race as the determining factor when drawing its boundaries.
The case has magnified the difficulties for ensuring protections for Black voters particularly in states where one’s race and political affiliation are closely aligned, blurring the line between racial or partisan gerrymandering.
In Thursday’s decision written by Justice Samuel Alito , the Supreme Court’s conservative majority argued that the complaint from the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP relied on “circumstantial” evidence that Republican state lawmakers used race when they drafted its congressional map.
The original article contains 551 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!