SCOTUS To Stop Racial Gerrymandering?

[Edgetho]

Stolen straight from Ace of Spades HQ with little to no shame.

The Supreme Court says it wants to hear arguments on the question of the constitutionality of racially-gerrymandered congressional seats.

Since the 80s, states have prioritized race as a factor in drawing congressional districts. Bizarre snake-like gerrymanders slither throughout states to pick up black neighborhoods here and there to guarantee a "majority minority" district where blacks are guaranteed to elect a black Democrat.

Is this even constitutional? The Supreme Court seems to think it's not, because they have asked for arguments on the issue even though it was basically ignored in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will weigh the constitutionality of a common form of redistricting used to protect the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters: the drawing of congressional districts where racial minorities make up at least half the population.
Experts in election law said the move signals that the court may be poised to further narrow the Voting Rights Act.

In a terse order issued Friday evening, the justices called for briefing on whether the "intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." ~ blah. blah, blah. Read the link

But here's the important part --

Steve Turley argues that ending the racial gerrymanders will effectively wipe out all Democrat congressional representation in the south and guarantee the Republican Party a minimum of 230 seats in Congress.

 

[1srelluc]

I've a feeling SCOTUS will end the practice.

No damn sense in 11-13% of the population (26%+ of them on welfare) holding so much sway over House congressional seats.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats invented "gerrymandering". Now that it seems to be going against them the freaking hypocrites want to go to war over it.

 

[Votto]

Says the democrat party

 

[Independent thinker]

Stolen straight from Ace of Spades HQ with little to no shame.

The Supreme Court says it wants to hear arguments on the question of the constitutionality of racially-gerrymandered congressional seats.

Since the 80s, states have prioritized race as a factor in drawing congressional districts. Bizarre snake-like gerrymanders slither throughout states to pick up black neighborhoods here and there to guarantee a "majority minority" district where blacks are guaranteed to elect a black Democrat.

Is this even constitutional? The Supreme Court seems to think it's not, because they have asked for arguments on the issue even though it was basically ignored in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will weigh the constitutionality of a common form of redistricting used to protect the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters: the drawing of congressional districts where racial minorities make up at least half the population.
Experts in election law said the move signals that the court may be poised to further narrow the Voting Rights Act.

In a terse order issued Friday evening, the justices called for briefing on whether the "intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." ~ blah. blah, blah. Read the link

But here's the important part --

Steve Turley argues that ending the racial gerrymanders will effectively wipe out all Democrat congressional representation in the south and guarantee the Republican Party a minimum of 230 seats in Congress.

Funny how democrats want to protect the voting power of black and hispanic voters, those on the plantation where democrats tell them how to vote.

 

[Votto]

Democrats have brought segragation back to colleges throughout the US, so why not with voting as well?

Racial Segregation On American Campuses: A Widespread Phenomenon

A new racial segregation has crept onto many American campuses: racially-based housing and recreational facilities for example. This is counter to the principles of the civil rights movement and a color-blind society.

www.forbes.com

Racial Segregation On American Campuses: A Widespread Phenomenon​

ByRichard Vedder,


The National Association of Scholars, a group of mostly academics interested in higher education, issues only a few research reports annually, but what they lack in quantity they make up in quality; their studies are extremely carefully done, with well documented research. A young NAS employee, Dion Pierre, has been researching the segregation of students on college campuses by race ---special commencement exercises for African-American students, living and recreational facilities segregated by race, black student unions, and so forth. These practices have existed for decades on some campuses and rather than fading as racial prejudices decline (witness rapidly increasing interracial marriages), they are flourishing. The Pierre study, mostly completed, should be released around Martin Luther King Day in early 2019.


All is this is terribly ironic. In 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively outlawed racial segregation in our schools. Angry whites, especially in the South, fought the attempt to integrate schools, often leading to violent protests, such as when James Meredith became the first black to enter the University of Mississippi in 1962. Civil rights leaders put their lives on the line working for a color-blind, non-race determined society, most memorably King when he articulated his dream where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The bitter struggle to break down racial distinctions in education lasted for decades, yet now universities are reintroducing segregation, making race the primary determinant of student participation in some activities, such as black student unions or race-based housing facilities.


College administrators facilitate this by constantly harping on race. They hire "diversity" coordinators in large numbers to check on the racial complexion of students, faculty, other staff and even contractors. If diversity has any educational virtue, it is in the notion that individuals will intermix with others with different traits--perhaps students coming from another area of the world, or having a different sexual orientation, socioeconomic background--or skin color. The idea is people become more tolerant, more understanding of alternative perspectives when they are exposed to individuals markedly different from themselves. Yet having all-black dorms or recreational areas is anti-diversity. In an Orwellian twist, the diversity coordinators are stifling interaction between people of different races. A news report says the new diversity czar at my university, Ohio University, is wanting to create a workout room in the campus recreational center open only for minority students--white students, who pay student activity fees to support the center, would be excluded.

Why? Two thoughts come to mind. First, college campuses are overwhelmingly left-of-center in political orientation. A new study by Samuel Abrams shows this is particularly true of student affairs staffs, the people who run housing and allocate funds for social and cultural campus events. Some 71 % of 900 respondents labeled themselves liberal or very liberal, compared with 6% conservative. There are almost 12 student affairs college administrators who are liberal for every conservative. Progressives tend to be more conscious of the group characteristics of individuals--identity politics if you will. Part of this leads to a strong conviction that the identify of historically underrepresented groups needs to be publicized and given special attention. Conservatives or moderates are more likely to want to emphasize individual meritocracy and elimination of the evaluating people on the basis of such attributes as skin color, closer to the King position in his "I Have a Dream" speech.

Second, I think some individuals without solid academic credentials push racial diversity as a means of gaining employment and/or enhancing their income --what economist's call "rent-seeking." Colleges are falling over one another creating new diversity officials at cushy six digit salaries. What are they going to do besides harass campus employees in their efforts to achieve their racist agenda, getting a "better" racial complexion among members of the university community? Pushing race-specific forms of campus involvement becomes one way to occupy themselves while collecting a nice paycheck and reveling in the power they have over a cowed faculty.

It is time that collegiate racism and massive redirection of resources away from academic goals of instruction and research is confronted. The prospective NAS study is thus a potentially promising way to expose the scandal, corruption and racism that student affairs and other university bureaucrats have foisted on the American academy.

 

[Dante]

Stolen straight from Ace of Spades HQ with little to no shame.

The Supreme Court says it wants to hear arguments on the question of the constitutionality of racially-gerrymandered congressional seats.

Since the 80s, states have prioritized race as a factor in drawing congressional districts. Bizarre snake-like gerrymanders slither throughout states to pick up black neighborhoods here and there to guarantee a "majority minority" district where blacks are guaranteed to elect a black Democrat.

Is this even constitutional? The Supreme Court seems to think it's not, because they have asked for arguments on the issue even though it was basically ignored in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will weigh the constitutionality of a common form of redistricting used to protect the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters: the drawing of congressional districts where racial minorities make up at least half the population.
Experts in election law said the move signals that the court may be poised to further narrow the Voting Rights Act.

In a terse order issued Friday evening, the justices called for briefing on whether the "intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." ~ blah. blah, blah. Read the link

But here's the important part --

Steve Turley argues that ending the racial gerrymanders will effectively wipe out all Democrat congressional representation in the south and guarantee the Republican Party a minimum of 230 seats in Congress.

The Supreme Court says it wants to hear arguments


try again

 

[Darkwind]

Under the category of, "Be careful what you wish for."

All Democratic states are gerrymandered on racist lines.

Should the SCOTUS rule on that, it is likely that there will be a huge loss of Democratic seats.

 

[Edgetho]

dimocrap scum have ALWAYS been racists. For the first 150 years of the existence of the dimocrap scum party, they were racist against Blacks.

Now they're racist against Whites. They have always been racist scum.

Why did they switch, you ask? Simple. It is to their advantage to switch.

In the past they were the slavers, they were the ones that started and fought the Civil War in order to keep theri way of life, to maintain the institution of slavery. They convinced a lot of good Men to die on thier behalf by claiming it was about States Rights. It wasn't. It never was. It was about them keeping their easy way of life.

After the Civil War, they maintained their dominance by stopping Black People (who were 99% Republican after the Civil War in the South) from voting and by persecuting and murdering Republicans wherever they found them. Which is why the KKK was formed. Not to persecute Blacks. That is re-writing history. And a giant lie. To persecute White Republicans..... Carpet Baggers. Later on, when Blacks became more politically active and joined Republicans, they were persecuted as well. In fact, few people know this (because they are stupid) but the KKK didn't lynch its first Black Man until the late 1880s. It was all White Men before that. White Republicans. FACT

Things changed with the Newer generations of Southern Whites so the dimocrap FILTH Party had to change with it. After JFK, (the LBJ and MLK collusion) dimocrap FILTH went full-on Anti-White racism.

And that's where we are today. dimocrap scum are racist against Whites because it benefits them. It helps them maintain their grift, their lifestyle.

If it suits dimocrap FILTH in the future, they'll change again. Jews were once the backbone of the dimocrap FILTH Party. The Jews still vote 80% for people (dimocrap FILTH) who want to murder them. Talk about stupidity.

How many times do we hear about some grifting dimocrap piece of shit making hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing -- Nothing? Political Office Holders retiring on quarter-million-dollar annual pensions?

dimocrap scum are racist today against whites because they have Blacks bull-shitted into voting for them and putting them in positions from which they can rob America Blind.

dimocraps are scum

 

[IM2]

It's amazing how the right will lie.

 

[forkintheroad7]

'Doesn't have the authority': TX governor gets basic law lesson from Newsmax expert

Newsmax judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano insisted that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) did not have the authority to expel Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on redistricting.In a statement on Sunday, Abbott said he would initiate the process to remove Democrats from office if they did...

www.rawstory.com

Judge Napolitano says Gov. Abbott of TX cannot issue extradition orders to get the Dim lawmakers (democrats) back to TX to make up a proper voting quorum (100 out of 150 are required for a quorom) RE this redistricting bill.

Sorry but Nap is really annoying to me these days. He could be correct about the extradition issue, but if he also thinks Abbott has no right to punish the Dims for fleeing, I say he is wrong. I'm not a lawyer (have studied some law but no degree) but it looks to me like

you know, that thing that the dims are always wanting to accuse Rs of:

obstruction of justice

They are holding up a vote on important legislation. I hope they get the book thrown at them.

 

[forkintheroad7]

dimocrap scum have ALWAYS been racists. For the first 150 years of the existence of the dimocrap scum party, they were racist against Blacks.

Now they're racist against Whites. They have always been racist scum.

Why did they switch, you ask? Simple. It is to their advantage to switch.

In the past they were the slavers, they were the ones that started and fought the Civil War in order to keep theri way of life, to maintain the institution of slavery. They convinced a lot of good Men to die on thier behalf by claiming it was about States Rights. It wasn't. It never was. It was about them keeping their easy way of life.

After the Civil War, they maintained their dominance by stopping Black People (who were 99% Republican after the Civil War in the South) from voting and by persecuting and murdering Republicans wherever they found them. Which is why the KKK was formed. Not to persecute Blacks. That is re-writing history. And a giant lie. To persecute White Republicans..... Carpet Baggers. Later on, when Blacks became more politically active and joined Republicans, they were persecuted as well. In fact, few people know this (because they are stupid) but the KKK didn't lynch its first Black Man until the late 1880s. It was all White Men before that. White Republicans. FACT

Things changed with the Newer generations of Southern Whites so the dimocrap FILTH Party had to change with it. After JFK, (the LBJ and MLK collusion) dimocrap FILTH went full-on Anti-White racism.

And that's where we are today. dimocrap scum are racist against Whites because it benefits them. It helps them maintain their grift, their lifestyle.

If it suits dimocrap FILTH in the future, they'll change again. Jews were once the backbone of the dimocrap FILTH Party. The Jews still vote 80% for people (dimocrap FILTH) who want to murder them. Talk about stupidity.

How many times do we hear about some grifting dimocrap piece of shit making hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing -- Nothing? Political Office Holders retiring on quarter-million-dollar annual pensions?

dimocrap scum are racist today against whites because they have Blacks bull-shitted into voting for them and putting them in positions from which they can rob America Blind.

dimocraps are scum

I tend to agree w/ most of this... did not know about the kkk murdering white Republicans! I did know about how it was the dims who formed the kkk, voted against Blacks being able to vote and voted mostly against them being freed.

blacks don't know this history, to speak of.. and thanks to indoctrinated students at liberal colleges

they may never find out.. except for people like you and me

 

[Edgetho]

'Doesn't have the authority': TX governor gets basic law lesson from Newsmax expert

Newsmax judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano insisted that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) did not have the authority to expel Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on redistricting.In a statement on Sunday, Abbott said he would initiate the process to remove Democrats from office if they did...

www.rawstory.com

Judge Napolitano says Gov. Abbott of TX cannot issue extradition orders to get the Dim lawmakers (democrats) to back to TX to make up a proper voting quorum (100 out of 150 are required for a quorom) RE this redistricting bill.

Sorry but Nap is really annoying to me these days. He could be correct about the extradition issue, but if he also thinks Abbott has no right to punish the Dims for fleeing, I say he is wrong. I'm not a lawyer (have studied some law but no degree) but it looks to me like

you know, that thing that the dims are always wanting to accuse Rs of:

obstruction of justice

They are holding up a vote on important legislation. I hope they get the book thrown at them.

Crappy Nappy is the most annoying person on Newsmax.

Jeanine Pirro dated him for a while and she said he reminded her of a "Well-Hung Field Mouse".

I don't know what that means. But I know what this means --

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Stolen straight from Ace of Spades HQ with little to no shame.

The Supreme Court says it wants to hear arguments on the question of the constitutionality of racially-gerrymandered congressional seats.

Since the 80s, states have prioritized race as a factor in drawing congressional districts. Bizarre snake-like gerrymanders slither throughout states to pick up black neighborhoods here and there to guarantee a "majority minority" district where blacks are guaranteed to elect a black Democrat.

Is this even constitutional? The Supreme Court seems to think it's not, because they have asked for arguments on the issue even though it was basically ignored in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will weigh the constitutionality of a common form of redistricting used to protect the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters: the drawing of congressional districts where racial minorities make up at least half the population.
Experts in election law said the move signals that the court may be poised to further narrow the Voting Rights Act.

In a terse order issued Friday evening, the justices called for briefing on whether the "intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." ~ blah. blah, blah. Read the link

But here's the important part --

Steve Turley argues that ending the racial gerrymanders will effectively wipe out all Democrat congressional representation in the south and guarantee the Republican Party a minimum of 230 seats in Congress.

That would serve democrats right for being racist segregationists.

 

[Edgetho]

I tend to agree w/ most of this... did not know about the kkk murdering white Republicans! I did know about how it was the dims who formed the kkk, voted against Blacks being able to vote and voted mostly against them being freed.

blacks don't know this history, to speak of.. and thanks to indoctrinated students at liberal colleges

they may never find out.. except for people like you and me

Yes, the untainted history of the KKK is hard to find.

Some Blacks are very aware of the despicable past of the dimocrap scum party, THE most despicable, disgusting, corrupt organization in Human History. More than you might think. But they are shouted down by the leftists in the Black community. Who outnumber the intelligent ones by about 10 - 1. Or more.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Yes, the untainted history of the KKK is hard to find.

Some Blacks are very aware of the despicable past of the dimocrap scum party, THE most despicable, disgusting, corrupt organization in Human History. More than you might think. But they are shouted down by the leftists in the Black community. Who outnumber the intelligent ones by about 10 - 1. Or more.

Yeh, it's not too bright to be a part of a political party that persecuted your people long years ago because they wanted to keep them enslaved... but again, they don't learn this history because of the liberal college professors which outnumber the conservative like 99 to 1...

 

[forkintheroad7]

Crappy Nappy is the most annoying person on Newsmax.

Jeanine Pirro dated him for a while and she said he reminded her of a "Well-Hung Field Mouse".

I don't know what that means. But I know what this means --

View attachment 1145027

OMG!

Jeanine Pirro dated him? I didn't know that. She likely will never mention it either on Fox News... for obvious reasons

LOL

Nap is always looking for ways to sabotage the R party, it seems...

I used to like him... liked his books.. but when he attacked Trump, I just couldn't figure that out... The only way to explain it is

the term RINO

 

[forkintheroad7]

Crappy Nappy is the most annoying person on Newsmax.

Jeanine Pirro dated him for a while and she said he reminded her of a "Well-Hung Field Mouse".

I don't know what that means. But I know what this means --

Notice

LOL

how Newsmax omits Nappy's name from the title of their article.

Apparently, even they don't fully believe him

 

[forkintheroad7]

Crappy Nappy is the most annoying person on Newsmax.

Jeanine Pirro dated him for a while and she said he reminded her of a "Well-Hung Field Mouse".

I don't know what that means. But I know what this means --

I can't see Pirro saying that about nappy in public. Where did you hear about that?

I know it doesn't matter... but it sounds odd and stuff

 

[Edgetho]

I can't see Pirro saying that about nappy in public. Where did you hear about that?

I know it doesn't matter... but it sounds odd and stuff

I don't remember where I heard it, but I remember hearing it. Could be just gossip but I heard they dated for a time. That could also be gossip.

But I've seen her when she was around Nappy and her body language was one of derision. I got the feeling she didn't care for him at all.