Well they have at least dropped the pretense now, I was getting tired of them spinning things to be acting like judges. Maybe we can save some taxpayer money on robes and just have them wear Nascar outfits to show who is sponsoring them?
Vote No Deportation Vote No Dollar + 20% tip everyone can vote ages 0-201 winner take all the world thank you No Dollar No paid No paid Rent No paid car No paid house. Vote No Vote Low No Drug No Gun No Gamble No abortion Burn Dollar No Dollar world safe without Dollar thank your Judge
Let's just be a little clear here. Is South Caroline gerrymandered? Yes. Is SC-1 gerrymandered? Actually no. It's not possible to draw a Black district in Coastal South Carolina. No matter how you draw it there's simply too much White population to draw a 2nd Black district. As such, the marginal argument presented simply isn't logical as it won't increase Black representation if they're in the 1st or 6th District. BUT that's because the 6th district is racially gerrymandered. Now before anyone points out it's a Black district, I know it is. Specifically, the population in this district is 46% Black and overall 55% minority voters. However, the population of South Carolina's Blacks is worth 1.75 Districts and more importantly there's several districts with 25% Black populations. Because the 6th packs Black voters in the Central part of the state in such a way that it's impossible to draw a 2nd Black district without gerrymandering. As a result, the remaining Black vote gets diluted into the other 6 districts. What happens if you unpack this district? You can produce 2 Black districts with a population of 42% and 43% respectively which is only 3-4% less than the current 6th District. What happened is a simple case of focusing on a tiny detail and not the bigger picture. Had they presented this argument then it would have probably went through because it's the same argument used in AL and LA. Instead, they focused on a minor gerrymander that didn't affect anything significant and as a result were told to no surprise that it was an invalid argument.
The community leaders and everyone in those communities need to make sure these disenfranchised people are bused to the right polling places. Make sure they have their ids with their addresses on them.
The judicial reasoning in Justice Kagan's brilliant and poignant dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, exposes its perversion (my characterization, not Justice Kagan's) in Alito's majority opinion. If the judicial reasoning of Alito's opinion were sound, one would not be so tempted to see the Alexander decision as racially motivated. But it is not sound. Alito's decision is so "upside-down," so disrespectful of the Supreme Court's Cooper precedent, that a first year law student should recognize-once again-stare decisis is given even lip service by the majority's members only when testifying under oath at Senate confirmation hearings. Shamefully "funny" how these The Federalist Society scholars, once claiming to abhor "judicial activism," seemingly are unbounded by the Constitution's text, unaware of the Constitution's history, and activist in restricting American's individual rights whenever they so choose. Alito's Alexander decision smacks of racism, racism in paranoid fear of "political apartheid" while engendering actual apartheid, not so long ago-and perhaps still-recognized by most Americans as the human scourge that it is. (Alito's "paranoia" in Alexander is as it was in the recent Trump immunity hearing, where he worried aloud about prosecutions of presidents losing close elections though there had never been any in our entire history before Trump induced the attack on our Capitol and our government. Of course, when the Court heard the immunity arguments, most of us were unaware of Alito's penchant for flag-flying and what that should tell us about the safety of the American government as we've known it in the hands of the current Roberts Court.) Sadly, Alito's Alexander writing continues the Roberts Court's bent toward complete obliviousness to real world America, where racism persists, and toward complete evisceration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I like how you use a lot of legal jargon, but you kind of missed the point. This case was arguing whether or not SC-1 was gerrymandered by partisanship or racism. The argument being presented was moving a small chunk of Charleston into SC-6 was racially motived. However, the maps used as arguments proved that no it couldn't be racially motived (as anyone who draws Congressional maps for fun such as myself can tell you). The reason being is that Charleston and the Coastal region the 1st district is based on is predominantly white. There's not enough Black voters for THAT district to be drawn to improve Black representation. Key words being "THAT district." The simple truth is the entire case's foundation was faulty because they sued on the wrong grounds. Consider what grounds won a 2nd Black district in AL and LA. The states have enough population for 2 Black Districts and they were drawn to pack Black voters into 1 to dilute their voting power. Which district then is the Actual Racially motived district that is diluting Black representation? SC-6. As someone who has drawn maps for SC, I can confirm that the Black population in SC-6 is around 46%. If you crack it, then the dilution of Black voters created in SC-1, SC-2, SC-5, and SC-7 is no longer possible. That district is designed to specifically pack Black voters in a way to forcibly draw the remaining Black vote into heavily Republican regions of the state. Thus, diluting Black voting power and preventing them from proper representation as they make up enough population for 1.75 Congressional Districts (with minorities overall making it over the line). If you reorganize the district so that Richland County is centered around the Northern half of SC's Black Belt and you reorganize the Southern half of the Black belt, it will produce two Black districts where Blacks comprise 42-43% of the vote. That is the racial gerrymandering in South Carolina, not SC-1. This is the entire reason why the court ruled in Republicans favor as Partisanship gerrymandering isn't considered illegal in SC. The truth of the matter is simply put that the NCAAP chose the wrong argument to present and lost their case as a result. Black voters needed to sue the racial gerrymandering in South Carolina 6 to produce a 2nd Black district which would have been the actual argument needed to likely win over the Supreme Court.
@@fridaylambda3494 I appreciate your perspective. Based on it, it seems even the majority "missed" your point. Regardless, Alito's opinion remains yet another example of the majority's disregarding precedent/stare decisis, "activism," "legislating from the bench," disdainfully declaring "we have the might and it makes right," and reaching a politically desired result and then looking for some way to justify it. That said, I do, sincerely, appreciate your effort and your thoughts. Thank you.
Sadly, in 2024 we expect nothing just coming from SCOTUS.
NO WONDER !
NO RESPECT FOR THE SUPREME COURT
GET RID OF ALITO AND THOMAS
Cry more
It was ok when Democrats do it though right
The Supreme court only has one alliance, it's power to desecrate our Democracy
Who here read the actual opinion?
Awesome 👍
No surprise from this far right court
Thsnk goodness!
The devil is coming down with great wrath.
Well they have at least dropped the pretense now, I was getting tired of them spinning things to be acting like judges. Maybe we can save some taxpayer money on robes and just have them wear Nascar outfits to show who is sponsoring them?
God bless SCOTUS
Just ignore the Supreme Court. Stench.
Vote No Deportation Vote No Dollar + 20% tip everyone can vote ages 0-201 winner take all the world thank you No Dollar No paid No paid Rent No paid car No paid house. Vote No Vote Low No Drug No Gun No Gamble No abortion Burn Dollar No Dollar world safe without Dollar thank your Judge
HHI is a gated Uber 1% City
Not many black people in there
Let's just be a little clear here. Is South Caroline gerrymandered? Yes. Is SC-1 gerrymandered? Actually no. It's not possible to draw a Black district in Coastal South Carolina. No matter how you draw it there's simply too much White population to draw a 2nd Black district. As such, the marginal argument presented simply isn't logical as it won't increase Black representation if they're in the 1st or 6th District. BUT that's because the 6th district is racially gerrymandered. Now before anyone points out it's a Black district, I know it is. Specifically, the population in this district is 46% Black and overall 55% minority voters. However, the population of South Carolina's Blacks is worth 1.75 Districts and more importantly there's several districts with 25% Black populations. Because the 6th packs Black voters in the Central part of the state in such a way that it's impossible to draw a 2nd Black district without gerrymandering. As a result, the remaining Black vote gets diluted into the other 6 districts. What happens if you unpack this district? You can produce 2 Black districts with a population of 42% and 43% respectively which is only 3-4% less than the current 6th District. What happened is a simple case of focusing on a tiny detail and not the bigger picture. Had they presented this argument then it would have probably went through because it's the same argument used in AL and LA. Instead, they focused on a minor gerrymander that didn't affect anything significant and as a result were told to no surprise that it was an invalid argument.
Yeah, "Civil rights groups argue". They always do, warranted or not. Nuff said.
Keeping the black voters down.
No, liberal racist do that!
The community leaders and everyone in those communities need to make sure these disenfranchised people are bused to the right polling places. Make sure they have their ids with their addresses on them.
Don't know what a computer is
@@nadjabrownrigg5798but I heard i.ds be rasist
I think the guy has Scott road rage probably a weatherman
Black for Trump, obviously, Trump is King of NYC , see Bronx, 60 000 blacks together with 40 000 latinos bless Trump in Bronx
Quit squabbling over your words learn how to take a breath from the heart
*BIDEN HARRIS '24* 🇺🇸🇺🇸
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Boarder economy energy police woke and foreign policies and no common sense.....are you sure
You have to be joking
The judicial reasoning in Justice Kagan's brilliant and poignant dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, exposes its perversion (my characterization, not Justice Kagan's) in Alito's majority opinion. If the judicial reasoning of Alito's opinion were sound, one would not be so tempted to see the Alexander decision as racially motivated. But it is not sound. Alito's decision is so "upside-down," so disrespectful of the Supreme Court's Cooper precedent, that a first year law student should recognize-once again-stare decisis is given even lip service by the majority's members only when testifying under oath at Senate confirmation hearings. Shamefully "funny" how these The Federalist Society scholars, once claiming to abhor "judicial activism," seemingly are unbounded by the Constitution's text, unaware of the Constitution's history, and activist in restricting American's individual rights whenever they so choose. Alito's Alexander decision smacks of racism, racism in paranoid fear of "political apartheid" while engendering actual apartheid, not so long ago-and perhaps still-recognized by most Americans as the human scourge that it is. (Alito's "paranoia" in Alexander is as it was in the recent Trump immunity hearing, where he worried aloud about prosecutions of presidents losing close elections though there had never been any in our entire history before Trump induced the attack on our Capitol and our government. Of course, when the Court heard the immunity arguments, most of us were unaware of Alito's penchant for flag-flying and what that should tell us about the safety of the American government as we've known it in the hands of the current Roberts Court.) Sadly, Alito's Alexander writing continues the Roberts Court's bent toward complete obliviousness to real world America, where racism persists, and toward complete evisceration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I like how you use a lot of legal jargon, but you kind of missed the point. This case was arguing whether or not SC-1 was gerrymandered by partisanship or racism. The argument being presented was moving a small chunk of Charleston into SC-6 was racially motived. However, the maps used as arguments proved that no it couldn't be racially motived (as anyone who draws Congressional maps for fun such as myself can tell you). The reason being is that Charleston and the Coastal region the 1st district is based on is predominantly white. There's not enough Black voters for THAT district to be drawn to improve Black representation. Key words being "THAT district." The simple truth is the entire case's foundation was faulty because they sued on the wrong grounds. Consider what grounds won a 2nd Black district in AL and LA. The states have enough population for 2 Black Districts and they were drawn to pack Black voters into 1 to dilute their voting power. Which district then is the Actual Racially motived district that is diluting Black representation? SC-6. As someone who has drawn maps for SC, I can confirm that the Black population in SC-6 is around 46%. If you crack it, then the dilution of Black voters created in SC-1, SC-2, SC-5, and SC-7 is no longer possible. That district is designed to specifically pack Black voters in a way to forcibly draw the remaining Black vote into heavily Republican regions of the state. Thus, diluting Black voting power and preventing them from proper representation as they make up enough population for 1.75 Congressional Districts (with minorities overall making it over the line). If you reorganize the district so that Richland County is centered around the Northern half of SC's Black Belt and you reorganize the Southern half of the Black belt, it will produce two Black districts where Blacks comprise 42-43% of the vote. That is the racial gerrymandering in South Carolina, not SC-1. This is the entire reason why the court ruled in Republicans favor as Partisanship gerrymandering isn't considered illegal in SC. The truth of the matter is simply put that the NCAAP chose the wrong argument to present and lost their case as a result. Black voters needed to sue the racial gerrymandering in South Carolina 6 to produce a 2nd Black district which would have been the actual argument needed to likely win over the Supreme Court.
@@fridaylambda3494 I appreciate your perspective. Based on it, it seems even the majority "missed" your point. Regardless, Alito's opinion remains yet another example of the majority's disregarding precedent/stare decisis, "activism," "legislating from the bench," disdainfully declaring "we have the might and it makes right," and reaching a politically desired result and then looking for some way to justify it. That said, I do, sincerely, appreciate your effort and your thoughts. Thank you.
So come November we're going to be 9,800000 kilometers given to Russia will the US be little Russia