Virginia Redistricting PASSED!!
- Thread starter Chumpsky
- Start date
That didn’t take long.
scotus denies application for stay in va case.
scotus denies application for stay in va case.
Gerrymander as voted by its citizens 
Gerrymander for "partisan" (racial reasons)
Gerrymander for "partisan" (racial reasons)
Interesting choice given the absence of any noted dissents.
…and this of course
Last edited:
So, next stop, Florida. Unfortunately I’ve only found some of the pleadings in the case argued to the trial court down there today. But between what I have found (ds brief only) and news accounts, here’s my initial reaction. I think there’s three issues
1. D’s have certainly cited enough info to show a likelihood of success on their claim it’s a political gerrymander that would violate the state constitution.
2. Rs argue the political gerrymandering restriction no longer applies because it was enacted with the racial mandate which they say has been invalidated, and that the two are not “severable”. This argument should lose because my high level understanding of Fla law is that severability is in fact presumed in the absence of specific legislative language to the contrary. I have not seen anything suggesting such language exists.
3. The rs might argue still argue that the current map can’t be used because of the racial mandate that went into it, but I have not seen enough to suggest if/how race actually played out in that map, so I don’t think they proved that. Either way, even if they did, that would not allow them to use a new map that violates #1. At best you’d probably have to revert to an earlier valid map if there is one.
Desantis should lose under state law.
1. D’s have certainly cited enough info to show a likelihood of success on their claim it’s a political gerrymander that would violate the state constitution.
2. Rs argue the political gerrymandering restriction no longer applies because it was enacted with the racial mandate which they say has been invalidated, and that the two are not “severable”. This argument should lose because my high level understanding of Fla law is that severability is in fact presumed in the absence of specific legislative language to the contrary. I have not seen anything suggesting such language exists.
3. The rs might argue still argue that the current map can’t be used because of the racial mandate that went into it, but I have not seen enough to suggest if/how race actually played out in that map, so I don’t think they proved that. Either way, even if they did, that would not allow them to use a new map that violates #1. At best you’d probably have to revert to an earlier valid map if there is one.
Desantis should lose under state law.
I respect your opinion but disagree strongly. This alone is disqualifying (and still not her worst)
We both know that’s stupid legislative gamesmanship. A congressional hearing is about the worst medium to evaluate the chops of either a questioner or a witness. Mere theater
In general I agree, but in this case the absolute inability to define something as simple as 'woman' is entirely inexcusable. There are gotcha questions then basic litmus tests. This was the latter and she failed miserably. How could one assume she can properly judge big ticket items such as abortion when she can't even identify who gets pregnant in the process?
Point taken but 4000 people in Louisiana had already voted when the decision came down and they allowed them to throw out those votes and reschedule the election anyway. They also cleared the way for Alabama to use their new maps for an election that starts next week. Not dissenting now on the Virginia map doesn't mean that some of the justices weren't sympathetic - it's likely because it didn't meet the high bar of an emergency application and they also didn't want to second guess the state court's ruling.
But I imagine the political contrasts will be useful for Democratic mid-term messaging.
Dude, she has impeccable credentials and more experience than 4 sitting justices. Cry more
The "racial mandate" as you're putting it was not the basis of the Callais decision, the majority specifically ruled that politically/partisan motivated gerrymandering is an acceptable method of sidestepping the racial discrimination components of the Voting Rights Act.
The promised golden age is upon us. There is still a seat open on the Trump Train dpic.
You're gonna have to convince him Russian collusion was a hoax and Charlottesville/fine people was a democrat funded op. Good luck... he seems somewhat allergic to reality.
Democrats should try not breaking the law when they do thingsGerrymander as voted by its citizens
Gerrymander for "partisan" (racial reasons)
Why because I noted that she's obviously mentally unfit for the role or because I noted biden gave her the job specifically because she was a black woman?
TBC, “racial mandate” is my shorthand - “directive” is probably more neutral and better term. I wouldn’t quite characterize callais that way. IMO, it held that race may only be used as a remedial measure when intentional discrimination I redistricting has been proved (which is a contrast to the Fla directive). But where callais went off the rails imo is in the catch 22 it set up in requiring a plaintiff to “control for” politics statistically in map making to Establish the discriminatory intent. Very difficult given correlation between race and d voting.
btw i am sort of looking forward to following the Florida litigation, if for no other reason than to refer to the states highest court as “scofla”
Last edited:
Sometimes they are, sometimes we they aren’t. For example the la mandate return application drew one, as did the minestrone application in danco
Last edited:
Scrubby, the thing is, just as the images of the some justices in white robes or sleeveless t shirts here are non sequitur as in a unanimous case like this, so too does your injection of dei attacks on kjb in such a decision needlessly raise inferences of … dare I say it … racism.
I’m here to try to describe and explain what happens at the court and to give my pov, which like everybody else I have. But I’m also here to defend the court, and the justices, who are very capable people that are all smarter than every one of us on this board, and who also have a povs and approaches to judicial decision making, which is aok. Again kbj is fine, and one other thing I appreciate about her presence up there is that she is the only one who brings the perspectives and experience of having served as a trial judge, which is a very different kind of zoo than the ivory tower of an appeals court.
Last edited:
Joe Biden literally said he was hiring a black woman for the job. That was his criteria. I didn't say that, the old man with dementia did. Affirmative action in action (even though the left calls that DEI now since affirmative action was ruled illegal). He could have appointed her without stating the race based criteria but instead he very openly admitted it was a decision based on her being a black woman.
So… do you think Clarence Thomas was a dei hire? He literally replaced thurgood marshall. And then of course there was the history of the Brandeis seat.
I suppose the point is, in matters of political appointments, there are political realities associated with the image of balance on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. and when you have qualified candidates that can check those boxes, balance away.
Simple question, did Bush Sr clearly state he was hiring a black man for the job while listing no other criteria for his decision? No? Then it's a totally different scenario from the KBJ/Biden appointment
She would still be mentally incapable of doing the job but all Biden had to say was he was going to appoint the best possible candidate for the position and then he could have selected on whatever actual criteria he wanted. Unfortunately for dems biden didn't have a working filter when he was president and let the cat out of the bag.
Yeah, I think the bench of qualified "liberal" judges/lawyers is quite deep and there are plenty to choose from who exceed the threshold for a "good enough" SCOTUS Justice. At that point (and I'm not saying that I think KBJ fits into this category) it's actually potentially better to sacrifice some marginal gains on jurisprudence expertise for a more diversified background and experiences. I'm probably not using the correct words here but I think you're probably picking up what I'm putting down.
Furthermore, I think it's very clear that whoever replaced Rgb was going to be a woman. They weren't going to overturn Roe with 5 male justices and every woman dissenting (plus the chief Justice).
