Decisions today - first up is First Choice Women's Resource center - a first amendment case relating to disclosure of donors by nonprofits, but the real issue was standing. Unanimous opinion by Gorsuch that the organization has standing to challenge the subpoena prior to actual enforcement.
SCOTUS Term 25-26
- Thread starter Aardvark86
- Start date
Yikes...and Callais!!!!! By Alito. In the absence of necessary race base districts to comply with the VRA, race based districts are unconstitutional. And as significantly, 'necessity' under the VRA is limited to remedies for intentional racial discrimination (not disparate impact). This is what Desantis, and others, were likely waiting for. While I'm not sure i buy it, FLA will argue that the clarification in law is the basis for redrawing the districts rather than state prohibited politics.
Surprisingly, only three opinions, one of which is just two pages. I have a feeling reading them is going to devolve pretty quickly into angels dancing on heads of pins.
Bottom line is that you may see some southern states reexamine maps on the theory that their districts were based on mistaken assumptions about when race-based districts were permissible or required
Surprisingly, only three opinions, one of which is just two pages. I have a feeling reading them is going to devolve pretty quickly into angels dancing on heads of pins.
Bottom line is that you may see some southern states reexamine maps on the theory that their districts were based on mistaken assumptions about when race-based districts were permissible or required
Last edited:
Wonder what bearing if any this might have on the latest rounds of SC redistricting. Whether it was to protect Jim Clyburn or protect the 1st district from flipping again, I suspect there will be challenges coming forth.
Just wow. Took a quick spin thru the two opinions. The court has indeed gutted the vra by effectively requiring that a plaintiff prove that a map can only be explained by current, intentional discrimination (and not by other permissible factors like politics). Without going into too much detail regarding the new standards of proof, the one that really jumps out is that the plaintiff must control for party Affiliation, which may well be impossible given the coherence of black voting patterns when compared with whites. In essence, a plaintiff must now “prove the negative”
Kagans dissent may well be the best of her career, which is saying something, and is well worth a read. It really does describe just what the majority actually did. Long term it would not surprise me if this is compared with scalias Morrison v Olsen dissent
there is a part of me that thinks that the time had come - societally and otherwise - for this opinion, but it frankly reads not unlike the worst of left leaning activist scotus diktats of the 60s, with a sprinkling of sophistry in the reasoning. That’s particularly troubling given that this was a statutory case.
Kagans dissent may well be the best of her career, which is saying something, and is well worth a read. It really does describe just what the majority actually did. Long term it would not surprise me if this is compared with scalias Morrison v Olsen dissent
there is a part of me that thinks that the time had come - societally and otherwise - for this opinion, but it frankly reads not unlike the worst of left leaning activist scotus diktats of the 60s, with a sprinkling of sophistry in the reasoning. That’s particularly troubling given that this was a statutory case.
Last edited:
Correct me where I am wrong, please. Are you saying that the VRAs time had past? However, the opinion by the majority is problematic and will cause more issues than it solves?
The map in dispute. District 6 is the green district.
I like the ruling because the goverment needs to get out of the business of race. Stop seeing us as Black Americans, White Americans, Brown Americans, and start seeing us all as Americans. Race should not be a legal reason to gerrymander any more than race should be allowed in hiring decisions (i.e DEI). The Civil Rights Act should ensure everyone is treated equally under the law.
Get the government out of the race business, and this is a good start.
I like the ruling because the goverment needs to get out of the business of race. Stop seeing us as Black Americans, White Americans, Brown Americans, and start seeing us all as Americans. Race should not be a legal reason to gerrymander any more than race should be allowed in hiring decisions (i.e DEI). The Civil Rights Act should ensure everyone is treated equally under the law.
Get the government out of the race business, and this is a good start.
But partisan gerrymandering is totes fine....
Sorta-kinda. We are, in fact, a long way from the 1960s in terms of electoral participation, economic and social mobility, empowerment and the like, so to the extent this reins in a lot of the 'historical effects-based' stuff (which doesn't really have a definable temporal endpoint and eventually just devolves into naked proportionality as a governing principle), I'm actually kinda ok with that.
Obviously, intent-based stuff is never acceptable, and so we still need VRA. (And of course, the VRA has lots of continuing relevance outside the redistricting context.) My concern with the majority opinion is that it's made it virtually impossible to make out the intent-based redistricting case in that not only must there be 'current' intentional discrimination, but that the plaintiff must 'prove the negative' that neutral factors didn't predominate. Sorta like saying that "a little" discrimination is ok, which is awfully weird and uncomfortable.
(OTOH, flipping the coin, there's a practical paradox here from a state defense perspective as well. Because of the incredible correlation of black voting and Democratic affiliation, which is really unlike anything else in American politics by orders of magnitude, it becomes awfully difficult for a state to "disprove" a racial inference with respect to actions that may in fact be politically motivated. And I am in the camp of thinking that Rucho was more right than wrong in allowing partisan considerations to justify map drawing.)
Last edited:
In identity politics is there a potential or justification for political parties to become a protected class? I kid, I think…
Tangentially, I am not in favor of any system that appears intent on silencing a significant number of voices and/or voters.
It seems crazy that maybe 16 years ago, pundits and comedians were predicting the death of the Republican Party post George W. Here we are. Let’s see what tomorrow brings.
That whole "total victory in just one... more... election" theme has been going on for a while now, and on an equal opportunity basis. It's truly laughable. Which, I suppose, tells you something about our actual governance. Something not too pretty.
You should have said the same thing about the Court's ruling on the Texas gerrymander. The Court tried, and hilariously failed, to make the case that the Texas gerrymander had nothing at all to do with race (even though the maps were very clearly drawn to dilute African American voting strength), and instead only concerned partisan politics, so that it was somehow constitutional. What a joke. That ruling won't last very long.
Good luck trying to distinguish "partisan based" from "race based," particularly when you are faced with maps that clearly seek to dilute African American voting power. That Court ruling was, IMHO, a joke.
Well, at least in one direction. But yeah, that’s the real sneaky part of this.
David Heath (@david.heath.writer) on Threads
@esglaude can barely contain his rage over the Supreme Court setting the country back to Jim Crow days. Must watch!
www.threads.com
@Aardvark86 - What do you think history will say based on this decision (and others) with regards to the Roberts Court's legacy? Too early to tell, I would argue.
The other thing I wonder, if this decision will spur congress to reassert itself as a lawmaking body?
The other thing I wonder, if this decision will spur congress to reassert itself as a lawmaking body?
Interesting question. First let me reiterate that I think the biggest legacy will be the reign in of agencies and incentives to strengthen article I as the primary institution for policy.
The race legacy will naturally be complicated. In essence, it will be the court that said we’re not going to do the same thing forever, when we have made progress. We’re going to reorient toward intent based discrimination. Whether that’s a good or bad legacy will depend what we do with it as citizens.
I doubt Congress steps in here, at least until the next one party d rule. In the 80s Congress did push back on a bipartisan basis on the idea that it was time to move on. I don’t see that stomach unless and until someone can identify and stick to a definable endpoint that is more than just rhetorical mush. Our normal political cycles may well think intent focus is enough.
side note - flyers had no business winning that game. Which is what makes the cup playoffs so great.
Last edited:
This was kind of an interesting take. While a bit much on the cheerleading side, I think it identifies what’s discomforting about the decision.