• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

demondeacfreak said:
Looks like Alabama’s old map is about the same as the new with both plans having 1 majority African American district. Alabama’s share of African Americans has actually declined from 26.1% to 25.8% comparing 2010 to 2020 data. Is it really that clear that the new map is unconstitutional? Seems like that question, plus the fact that the election in AL is not far off, was the majority’s reasoning.
Click to expand...

That's awful logic if they are only looking at the most recent map relative to the prior map that was gerrymandered in the first place.

Hey, it's less unconstitutional than before so it's not actually unconstitutional seems like a pretty slippery slope.
 
demondeacfreak said:
Looks like Alabama’s old map is about the same as the new with both plans having 1 majority African American district. Alabama’s share of African Americans has actually declined from 26.1% to 25.8% comparing 2010 to 2020 data. Is it really that clear that the new map is unconstitutional? Seems like that question, plus the fact that the election in AL is not far off, was the majority’s reasoning.
Click to expand...

I mean, Kavanaugh said what his thinking was, at least (joined by Alito), in his concurrence. He couldn't have been clearer--he wasn't ruling on the merits at all. It was solely because of the inability to draw a map, get candidates and voters properly registered and accounted for in the correct districts, and hold a primary, all in less than 2 months. That's it. The SCOTUS might ultimately overrule or limit Thornburg on the merits, but there isn't a hint of that in the concurrence.
 
WakeBored said:
I mean, Kavanaugh said what his thinking was, at least (joined by Alito), in his concurrence. He couldn't have been clearer--he wasn't ruling on the merits at all. It was solely because of the inability to draw a map, get candidates and voters properly registered and accounted for in the correct districts, and hold a primary, all in less than 2 months. That's it. The SCOTUS might ultimately overrule or limit Thornburg on the merits, but there isn't a hint of that in the concurrence.
Click to expand...

so basically Republican states will just need to have SCOTUS cases close to primaries/elections and because of the timing there's nothing SCOTUS can do but say gotta proceed as planned
 
If you wait to do something illegal, they have to let you keep doing it. It would be too inconvenient to wait and have legal elections. #law
 
Two months? Thought the election was in November. If I read that wrongs oops but I also read this map change took a week to come up with so that argument does hold up.
 
deaconson said:
Two months? Thought the election was in November. If I read that wrongs oops but I also read this map change took a week to come up with so that argument does hold up.
Click to expand...

Absentee voting for the primaries starts March 30.
 
WakeBored said:
I mean, Kavanaugh said what his thinking was, at least (joined by Alito), in his concurrence. He couldn't have been clearer--he wasn't ruling on the merits at all. It was solely because of the inability to draw a map, get candidates and voters properly registered and accounted for in the correct districts, and hold a primary, all in less than 2 months. That's it. The SCOTUS might ultimately overrule or limit Thornburg on the merits, but there isn't a hint of that in the concurrence.
Click to expand...

And here he is, ladies and gentlemen. Lockstep with the racist bullshit, as usual. Pretty sure the lower court decision, that Roberts said had no errors for review, was decided by mostly Trump judges.
 
Shooshmoo said:
And here he is, ladies and gentlemen. Lockstep with the racist bullshit, as usual. Pretty sure the lower court decision, that Roberts said had no errors for review, was decided by mostly Trump judges.
Click to expand...

lower courts: throw out this racist garbage.
SCOTUS: you can't. it's, uh, too soon before the election. yeah, that's the ticket.
 
It's more like the lower court (and Roberts) said, "listen, we would do nearly anything we could to keep this racist gerrymandering in place, but from a legal standpoint there is absolutely nothing we can do without looking like complete activist, racist frauds". And the 5 extremists on SCOTUS asked them to hold their beers (except Kavanaugh, he needed to keep his beer).
 
Liquid Karma said:
That's awful logic if they are only looking at the most recent map relative to the prior map that was gerrymandered in the first place.

Hey, it's less unconstitutional than before so it's not actually unconstitutional seems like a pretty slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Looks like the 2010 plan received pre-approval from a federal court and was also approved by the Obama DOJ.

https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Alabama_after_the_2010_census

Suffice to say, I don't think it's super obvious that the 2020 plan is unconstitutional. It may be, after all at least one judge thinks so, I just don't think its a slam dunk case.
 
Why is it that the Republicans can be in lockstep with the Federalist Society on their Judges, but Democrats have to seek advice from both parties, say dumb shit like "I'm not looking to make an ideological pick here" and put forward moderates because they are from the same state as people who have clout.

Give me the liberal version of Judge Pryor, someone who makes the GOP scream "Anyone but them." that's the kind of justice I want. I want 20 years of blistering minority opinions Give me the anti-Gorsuch or Barrett. Seriously the last Judge the Dems tried to get on the court was a 60 year old moderate white guy who was pro law enforcement, and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing. So why try and play nice again.

Also, considering Biden said he is looking at people that came from the best universities (where have we heard that before) it would be tough for me to see that to mean Judge Childs.
 
TimmyClutch said:
Why is it that the Republicans can be in lockstep with the Federalist Society on their Judges, but Democrats have to seek advice from both parties, say dumb shit like "I'm not looking to make an ideological pick here" and put forward moderates because they are from the same state as people who have clout.

Give me the liberal version of Judge Pryor, someone who makes the GOP scream "Anyone but them." that's the kind of justice I want. I want 20 years of blistering minority opinions Give me the anti-Gorsuch or Barrett. Seriously the last Judge the Dems tried to get on the court was a 60 year old moderate white guy who was pro law enforcement, and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing. So why try and play nice again.

Also, considering Biden said he is looking at people that came from the best universities (where have we heard that before) it would be tough for me to see that to mean Judge Childs.
Click to expand...

it's like the episode of West Wing where Bartlett appoints a liberal and conservative for the balance
 
TimmyClutch said:
Why is it that the Republicans can be in lockstep with the Federalist Society on their Judges, but Democrats have to seek advice from both parties, say dumb shit like "I'm not looking to make an ideological pick here" and put forward moderates because they are from the same state as people who have clout.

Give me the liberal version of Judge Pryor, someone who makes the GOP scream "Anyone but them." that's the kind of justice I want. I want 20 years of blistering minority opinions Give me the anti-Gorsuch or Barrett. Seriously the last Judge the Dems tried to get on the court was a 60 year old moderate white guy who was pro law enforcement, and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing. So why try and play nice again.
Click to expand...

How is it that you are not aware of Justice Sotomayor?
 
TimmyClutch said:
Sotomayor is 1, I want another. I was thinking something like a younger version of Diane Wood.
Click to expand...

yeah and if I recall the conventional thinking at the time was Obama had to follow-up with someone more moderate to even get the time of day from Republicans. Still didn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top