Clarence Thomas Joins Liberals, Shocks World

Disir

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2011
28,003
9,605
910
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. The broad ruling will likely have ripple effects on litigation across the country, helping plaintiffs establish that state legislatures unlawfully injected race into redistricting. And, in a welcome change, the decision did not split along familiar ideological lines: Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to create a majority, following his race-blind principles of equal protection to an unusually progressive result.

Cooper v. Harris, Monday’s case, involves North Carolina’s two most infamous congressional districts, District 1 and District 12. In the 1990s, the Democratic-controlled state legislature gerrymandered both districts into bizarre shapes that appeared to be drawn along racial lines. A group of Republican voters sued, arguing that the state had used race to shape the districts in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. North Carolina acknowledged that it had used race in redistricting, but argued that it did so for a constitutionally permissible reason: It wanted to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority votes and, at the time, required the creation of majority-minority districts in historically racist states. To ensure compliance with the VRA, North Carolina asserted, it had drawn both districts to be majority black.
The Decisive Vote to Strike Down Racial Gerrymandering Came From … Clarence Thomas?

Or at least shocked Slate.
 
Before this happened, I thought that gerrymandering for race to be illegal but not for politics.

:dunno:
 
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. The broad ruling will likely have ripple effects on litigation across the country, helping plaintiffs establish that state legislatures unlawfully injected race into redistricting. And, in a welcome change, the decision did not split along familiar ideological lines: Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to create a majority, following his race-blind principles of equal protection to an unusually progressive result.

Cooper v. Harris, Monday’s case, involves North Carolina’s two most infamous congressional districts, District 1 and District 12. In the 1990s, the Democratic-controlled state legislature gerrymandered both districts into bizarre shapes that appeared to be drawn along racial lines. A group of Republican voters sued, arguing that the state had used race to shape the districts in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. North Carolina acknowledged that it had used race in redistricting, but argued that it did so for a constitutionally permissible reason: It wanted to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority votes and, at the time, required the creation of majority-minority districts in historically racist states. To ensure compliance with the VRA, North Carolina asserted, it had drawn both districts to be majority black.
The Decisive Vote to Strike Down Racial Gerrymandering Came From … Clarence Thomas?

Or at least shocked Slate.

If you vote down racial gerrymandering, minority representation in state legislatures and the US House will drop dramatically. You'd hear lots of whining then.
 
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. The broad ruling will likely have ripple effects on litigation across the country, helping plaintiffs establish that state legislatures unlawfully injected race into redistricting. And, in a welcome change, the decision did not split along familiar ideological lines: Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to create a majority, following his race-blind principles of equal protection to an unusually progressive result.

Cooper v. Harris, Monday’s case, involves North Carolina’s two most infamous congressional districts, District 1 and District 12. In the 1990s, the Democratic-controlled state legislature gerrymandered both districts into bizarre shapes that appeared to be drawn along racial lines. A group of Republican voters sued, arguing that the state had used race to shape the districts in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. North Carolina acknowledged that it had used race in redistricting, but argued that it did so for a constitutionally permissible reason: It wanted to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority votes and, at the time, required the creation of majority-minority districts in historically racist states. To ensure compliance with the VRA, North Carolina asserted, it had drawn both districts to be majority black.
The Decisive Vote to Strike Down Racial Gerrymandering Came From … Clarence Thomas?

Or at least shocked Slate.
Gerrymandering always seems to be a close call whenever the SCOTUS rules on it.

Sometimes it is the strict constructionists that disagree with gerrymandering, and sometimes it is the activists jurists on the court who do.

In this present case it is the activists joined by Thomas, a strict constructionist, who disagree with the gerrymandering.

I agree that gerrymandering is bad.

As an issue it is hard to reconcile.

in the SCOTUS it all depends on which way the wind is blowing.
 
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. The broad ruling will likely have ripple effects on litigation across the country, helping plaintiffs establish that state legislatures unlawfully injected race into redistricting. And, in a welcome change, the decision did not split along familiar ideological lines: Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to create a majority, following his race-blind principles of equal protection to an unusually progressive result.

Cooper v. Harris, Monday’s case, involves North Carolina’s two most infamous congressional districts, District 1 and District 12. In the 1990s, the Democratic-controlled state legislature gerrymandered both districts into bizarre shapes that appeared to be drawn along racial lines. A group of Republican voters sued, arguing that the state had used race to shape the districts in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. North Carolina acknowledged that it had used race in redistricting, but argued that it did so for a constitutionally permissible reason: It wanted to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority votes and, at the time, required the creation of majority-minority districts in historically racist states. To ensure compliance with the VRA, North Carolina asserted, it had drawn both districts to be majority black.
The Decisive Vote to Strike Down Racial Gerrymandering Came From … Clarence Thomas?

Or at least shocked Slate.

If you vote down racial gerrymandering, minority representation in state legislatures and the US House will drop dramatically. You'd hear lots of whining then.
For whatever reason some state is gerrymandered, I think it is bad.

I do not believe the ends ever justify the means. This is an ethics issue. Anyone who thinks ends justify means is a relativist not an ethicist.
 
Wow. Absolutely stunned! Thomas?! There must be something going on here we don't know about.
Thomas has been anti DEM for a long time.

Sometimes he is also anti Negro as well.

He believes in bootstrapping for Negroes and so this may be either political or racial, or it could simply be idealistic.

I would need to see all of Thomas' gerrymandering rulings to try and see where his thinking is really coming from.

Same is true of Ginsberg, Breyer, Soto, and Kagan. I would need to see their histories too.

Same is true of Roberts and the others on the dissenting side.
 
Great thread starter Disir !!

I am going to add you to my VIP list because of this (following).

I know sometimes you and I disagree.

But thanks, this time !!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top