Supreme Court rules for (gasp!) the GOP in SC redistricting case

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Supreme Court throws out race claim in South Carolina redistricting case in win for GOP

Civil rights groups argued that state Republicans unlawfully redrew GOP Rep. Nancy Mace’s district when they removed thousands of Black voters.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Republicans in South Carolina did not unlawfully consider race when they drew a congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters, making it harder for civil rights plaintiffs to bring racial gerrymandering claims.

The court, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, said civil rights group had not done enough to show that legislators were focused on race in drawing the Charleston-area district currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican.

While the Supreme Court was considering the case, much more slowly than expected, the lower court that had invalidated the map said it could be used for this year’s election.

It's that 6-3 split that is so telling, and -- here's the kicker -- Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his majority opinion, the legislature was merely seeking to make the seat safer for Republicans — a goal that does not violate the Constitution. Oh, no -- to make the district "safer" for Republicans, they only removed people who had voted Democratic, your Honor. Is it our fault they were all black?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Count me among those equally shocked.

 

[F1fan]

In essence the court ruled 6-3 that they lack any credibility as the top court in America.

Anyone care to guess if they will give Trump immunity?

 

[Pogo]

In essence the court ruled 6-3 that they lack any credibility as the top court in America.

Anyone care to guess if they will give Trump immunity?

It ought to be a bridge too far but.

 

[F1fan]

At this point the court is corrupted and needs to be replaced completely. New standards of selecting justices needs to be created and enforced. No more political parties making selections.

 

[Pogo]

At this point the court is corrupted and needs to be replaced completely. New standards of selecting justices needs to be created and enforced. No more political parties making selections.

Are we at 50 years and counting yet for the Equal Rights Amendment? Uh yup that was two years ago.

Maybe there is something to the MAGA idea of burn it all down and start over.

 

[tytlyf]

Elections have consequences. I voted for Hillary so my conscience is clear. SCOTUS went super-conservative after 2016
Conservatives used immoral means to gain the advantage too.

 

[Shaul]

Race is a red herring in this case. Everything isn't about race.

 

[metis]

Race is a red herring in this case. Everything isn't about race.

Maybe explain why you think as such?

 

[F1fan]

Race is a red herring in this case. Everything isn't about race.

The lower courts acknowledged the evidence that it was. Alito just brushed the evidence aside. Oddly he essentially endorsed political gerrymanding as long as if it can't be shown to be definitively racist, which any right wing judge will coincidently not acknowledge.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The lower courts acknowledged the evidence that it was. Alito just brushed the evidence aside. Oddly he essentially endorsed political gerrymanding as long as if it can't be shown to be definitively racist, which any right wing judge will coincidently not acknowledge.

I tell everyone the truth -- I read Alito's judgment, and I think you have hit the nail on the head. I also think that Justice Elena Kagan got that same message, when she wrote that the majority had "stacked the deck" against the challengers by saying evidence about the impact on Black voters can easily be sidestepped if the state can offer an alternative narrative that insists voters were divvied up based on partisan interests.

The real problem with that is, of course, that black voters, on the whole, tend to be Democratic voters. So you can ignore one aspect of their nature, and pretend you only see the other.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his majority opinion, the legislature was merely seeking to make the seat safer for Republicans

He needs removed from office.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Race is a red herring in this case. Everything isn't about race.

Afraid I disagree. Pretending that you only see the "voting" aspect of a human being, and not their color, when they are statistically closely related, is a sham.

I'm reminded of the troubles between "Hutus" and "Tutsis" in Rwanda. Do you know how to tell one from the other? Hutus have broad noses (someone told you that), except when they have narrow noses. The real giveaway, however, is that traditionally Tutsis are herders, and Hutus are farmers, except for the Tutsis who grow crops and the Hutus who keep cattle.

Frankly, the distinction is entirely social, and imposed by Europeans who couldn't tell one from the other with a magnifying glass.

 

[Shaul]

Maybe explain why you think as such?

The ruling from the Supreme Court in this case stated that it was so.

 

[Shaul]

The lower courts acknowledged the evidence that it was. Alito just brushed the evidence aside. Oddly he essentially endorsed political gerrymanding as long as if it can't be shown to be definitively racist, which any right wing judge will coincidently not acknowledge.

The lower Court was wrong, not the majority of the Supreme Court. It was NOT "brushed aside". People who see racism behind every bush will not and cannot accept that because they are closed minded.

[Edited for omitted "NOT"]

 

[Shaul]

Afraid I disagree. Pretending that you only see the "voting" aspect of a human being, and not their color, when they are statistically closely related, is a sham.

I'm reminded of the troubles between "Hutus" and "Tutsis" in Rwanda. Do you know how to tell one from the other? Hutus have broad noses (someone told you that), except when they have narrow noses. The real giveaway, however, is that traditionally Tutsis are herders, and Hutus are farmers, except for the Tutsis who grow crops and the Hutus who keep cattle.

Frankly, the distinction is entirely social, and imposed by Europeans who couldn't tell one from the other with a magnifying glass.

As the majority opinion noted, when a particular race (Blacks in this case) overwhelmingly vote a certain way politically (Democrat in this case), there is no way to pronounce a racial motivation. If someone brings a preset mindset and bigotry that race is a factor, such a person will find putative "racism" whether any exists or not.

 

[F1fan]

The lower Court was wrong, not the majority of the Supreme Court.

Yet you offer no evidence that you are correct.

The right wing of the supreme court has questionable ethics, and Alito and Thomas are highly unethical and partisan. You don;t defend these problems at all.

It was "brushed aside".

Thanks for admitting that Alito's approach was inappropriate, and did not follow the evidence that the lower court recognized.

People who see racism behind every bush will not and cannot accept that because they are closed minded.

Irrelevant, this case was about republicans removing areas of the district tat was highly populated by black citizens. The only reason for the republicans to adjust the disctrict was that Mace barely won in the previous election, and what better way to ensure fewer democrat votes than to eliminate black citizens from the district? Go ahread and call it political like Alito, and insist that it isn't racist to eliminate black citizens from a district. If that isn't racist then it supports the old saying that racists don't understand that they are racist.

How else would republicans know who to eliminate in a district and ensure it's largely democrat? Even if it wasn't racist, it is highly corrupt to manipulate a district to ensure an election. It's fraud. It's unacceptable. And the right wing on the SC does not care.

 

[Shaul]

Yet you offer no evidence that you are correct.

I offer as evidence the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.

The right wing of the supreme court has questionable ethics, and Alito and Thomas are highly unethical and partisan. You don;t defend these problems at all.

Nonsense. It is YOU that has no evidence of that. You whole argument is just your opinion.

Thanks for admitting that Alito's approach was inappropriate, and did not follow the evidence that the lower court recognized.

I don't admit that. I had an error in my prior post which I have corrected. It was the lower Court which made the error. It misinterpreted the facts.

Irrelevant, this case was about republicans removing areas of the district tat was highly populated by black citizens. The only reason for the republicans to adjust the disctrict was that Mace barely won in the previous election, and what better way to ensure fewer democrat votes than to eliminate black citizens from the district? Go ahread and call it political like Alito, and insist that it isn't racist to eliminate black citizens from a district. If that isn't racist then it supports the old saying that racists don't understand that they are racist.

Wrong. As the Supreme Court opined the districts were drawn for political advantage and not for racist purposes. It is those that see racism where there is none that fulfill your "old saying"[sic]. They are the genuine racists if there be any.

How else would republicans know who to eliminate in a district and ensure it's largely democrat? Even if it wasn't racist, it is highly corrupt to manipulate a district to ensure an election. It's fraud. It's unacceptable. And the right wing on the SC does not care.

It was based on political party demographics, not racial demographics. It isn't manipulation. You are just upset because "your" team is on the political outs and can't sell their brand.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Race is a red herring in this case. Everything isn't about race.

This is a legitimate decision and the left simply dosent like it so they scream race.

Typical and expected behavior.

 

[We Never Know]

Supreme Court throws out race claim in South Carolina redistricting case in win for GOP

Civil rights groups argued that state Republicans unlawfully redrew GOP Rep. Nancy Mace’s district when they removed thousands of Black voters.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Republicans in South Carolina did not unlawfully consider race when they drew a congressional district in a way that removed thousands of Black voters, making it harder for civil rights plaintiffs to bring racial gerrymandering claims.

The court, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, said civil rights group had not done enough to show that legislators were focused on race in drawing the Charleston-area district currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican.

While the Supreme Court was considering the case, much more slowly than expected, the lower court that had invalidated the map said it could be used for this year’s election.

It's that 6-3 split that is so telling, and -- here's the kicker -- Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his majority opinion, the legislature was merely seeking to make the seat safer for Republicans — a goal that does not violate the Constitution. Oh, no -- to make the district "safer" for Republicans, they only removed people who had voted Democratic, your Honor. Is it our fault they were all black?

Redistricting -divide or organize an area into new political districts.

IOW its stacking the deck in your favor. Both parties are trying to redraw maps(or may have done it).

It's BS from both parties.