The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Shot near the heart
And the Trans are to blame
They give Wingnut assholes
A fresh grave (fresh grave)

 

Should it be "less"?

 

@Auriaprottu
@Cascarino's Pizzeria

I didn’t report the back and forth. I increasingly just scroll by.

Please take into account that @Val has told us he spent a whole career in helping people with special needs find jobs and assisted living.

As he is volunteering his time in an attempt to keep this board at least somewhat worthwhile, I think the least we could do is keep the “r-word” out of the insipid trash talk.

HAIL GRIMES!!!

 

It’s simpler than that. They’re likely concerned about how they write an opinion that states can’t ban medical procedures and not have it affect certain medical procedures that they’re perfectly happy having states ban. They’ll likely settle on “because we said so and look at the scoreboard” reasoning. But they’re hesitant about having to thread that needle to give the pretense of objectivity

 

And Sphinx, shrinks, drinks...

 

Dinks, twinks, minks

 

Finks, Kinks, skinks, and minxes... and Jar Jar Binks...

 

I don't recall using it but ummkay

 

Consider it a pre-emptive caution. Again, I scrolled by most of it.

 

Just remember, when things are looking like they are at it's lowest point, they can also get worse.

Democrats could lose over 10 seats if this goes the Republicans way. Not only because Republicans will get rid of as many Black / Latino majority districts, but democrats will be unwilling to do so to more easily gerrymander in more blue districts.

"The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 15, in Louisiana v. Callais, a challenge to the congressional map that Louisiana adopted in 2024 that may reshape the Voting Rights Act. It is the second go-round at the court for this dispute in less than a year; the justices heard arguments in the case for the first time in March, but didn’t decide it during their 2024-25 term. Here is a brief explainer on the long and complicated history of this case."


https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/...nts-in-pivotal-case-on-the-voting-rights-act/

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/14/politics/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-conservatives

 

Tldr: white people feel discriminated by the Voting Rights Act and want it sent to the shredder.

John Roberts has had a burning desire to do that since the 80s.

 

Slate says Republicans could secure 27 safe Republicans seats, meaning they would secure the house of Reps for a long time.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...blicans-congress-trump-voting-rights-act.html

 

Trying to ameliorate racial discrimination is discrimination against Whitelandia.
We are now a color-blind society. Kudos, America!

In plain terms, Thomas is saying that even proven racial discrimination in political maps cannot justify race-conscious remedies.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has echoed another Thomas argument, suggesting that Section 2’s race-conscious protections “cannot extend indefinitely into the future.” His writings imply that he views its authority as temporary and may be ready to join Thomas in striking it down.

If the far-right justices’ reasoning prevails, politicians who gerrymander to silence voters of color will have a new defense: Fixing racial discrimination is discrimination itself. It’s an Orwellian logic that would make it nearly impossible to challenge unfair maps—not just in Congress but in state legislatures, city councils, and school boards across the country.

The result would essentially be a return to the pre-1965 Jim Crow playbook, masked in pseudo-constitutional language.

If Section 2 falls, we could see an existential shift in power—a system in which representation reflects not the will of the people but the will of those in power. Congress would become insulated from accountability, its makeup preserved by maps drawn to protect incumbents.

 

Essentially the Democratic Party will never win the leadership again.

 

We lost.

 

It took them 165 years, but the Confederacy has emerged victorious.

 

I say secession now, secession tomorrow, seccesion forevah!

 

There has to be some BS astroturf group behind this with a name like Voting Rights For All Foundation

The long-running dispute concerns the congressional map that Louisiana was required to redraw last year after being sued under the Voting Rights Act to ensure that there were two majority-Black districts. The original map only had one such district in a state where a third of the population is Black.

The Supreme Court originally heard the case earlier this year on a narrower set of legal issues, but in a rare move, it asked in June for the parties to reargue it. The court then raised the stakes by asking the lawyers to focus on a larger constitutional issue.

Now, the justices will be deciding whether drawing a map to ensure there are majority-Black districts violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments, which were both enacted after the Civil War to ensure equal rights for former slaves, including the right to vote.

Conservatives argue that both constitutional amendments prohibit consideration of race at any time. The Supreme Court has previously embraced this “colorblind” interpretation of the Constitution, most notably in its 2023 ruling that ended the consideration of race in college admissions.

Louisiana, which initially defended its new map, has switched sides and joined a group of self-identified "non-African-American" voters who sued to block it on constitutional grounds. The Trump administration also backs the state's new position.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...t-redistricting-congress-louisiana-rcna237565

 

Voting rights for these POS's means "My vote can't be cancelled out by any ************s."

 

I can see all the GOPedo states meddling with their districts to give Dear Leader their best chance to keep the House in 2026, and also suing all the purple and blue states for suspicious results.

 

If the Court rules the way Roberts wants, it'd be trivially easy for Blue States to lock out all Republican districts. They just need the will to do it.

 

People were posting maps of California that could get more than 5 new blue districts, but many would have violated the voting rights act.

So it is possible for Democrats to get more, but it would mean diluting majority black and brown districts, that would not be easy for Democrats, the black and Hispanic caucuses would fight to protect their members districts.