182

A 160-year-old campaign against civil rights heads to the supreme court (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by linuxpriest@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summing up the article using excerpts from it, but still worth reading in its entirety:

Louisiana v Callais is a major challenge to what remains of the Voting Rights of Act of 1965 (VRA) and could radically rework the structure of political representation in the United States. A successful challenge to the VRA would allow the Republican party to further cheat democracy by engaging in even more partisan gerrymandering and erasing several legislative districts held by Democratic officials, many of whom are racial minorities.

Multiple courts relied on section two of the VRA to strike down a set of legislative maps that did not afford Black voters with equal rights or equal opportunities as white voters. That set off a redistricting process where the Louisiana legislature had to ensure the state’s maps provided Black voters with political representation.

Now the supreme court is being asked to find section two illegal – to say that considering political equality is a kind of discrimination. The argument is that prohibiting legislatures from discriminating against Black voters, by denying them political opportunities, actually discriminates against white voters.

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] decapitae@sh.itjust.works 29 points 8 months ago

More bigoted bullsh*t from a bigoted terrorist regime. When will the racists be ousted? I suppose when all the white non-sumpremists oust them? Only then will racists see that the rich white psuedo-churchgoers aren't discriminated against and that they're just whining nazis in disguise trying to cheat their way into some sort of "supremacy". 😮‍💨

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

You can say bullshit on the Internet.

It has been said before, but being reduced to a place of normality from a place of privilege is always going to feel like oppression to the privileged.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

This argument is so fucking bonkers and racist the Republican Justices don't even need bribes to vote for it.

[-] ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml 22 points 8 months ago

This sounds like an incredibly dumb argument, but I'm trying to understand their reasoning. Are they admitting that this proposed legislature is discriminating black voters, but say it's ok because otherwise it would be discrimination against white voters? Or are they claiming it's not discriminatory at all? In the former case, wouldn't there need to be some law that says discrimination against whites is worse than discrimination against blacks?

[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

“Incredibly dumb” isn’t even the lowest bar they need to clear with the ol’ 6-3

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

I think it’s one of those “will of the voters” things they keep going on about. If we don’t let Republicans destroy democracy then we are besmirching the rights of their voters, who just happen to be majority white and clearly gave Republicans a “mandate”. But fuck you if you’re a Democratic voter, It’s not possible for Democrats to have a mandate.

I’m not totally sure though, trying to think like them makes my brain hurt.

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

So their argument is that by not discriminating against black people it automatically means they are discriminating against white people. Pretty dumb argument.

My question then is, doesn't the Constitution leave elections to state legislatures? Why are they not arguing instead that the Federal government is trying to interfere through the voting rights Act and therefore acting unconstitutionally?

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 8 months ago

When you're privileged, equality looks like oppression.

[-] LunaLoveswood 3 points 8 months ago

The constitution stopped mattering to the SCOTUS the moment they declared Fart a king, so all that you know about how the rule of law should work is completely irrelevant because they will just fulfill the will of dear Führer. I hate this timeline.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The system has so many loopholes, there isn't much substance left anymore.

It needs a complete overhaul.

But I'm not sure how that could work while the country is running, and you can't stop a country. History shows us that revolution is the only option here, I guess?

[-] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Trump can stop a country: see the upcoming shutdown. Americans don’t have a lot of remaining opportunities to stop fascism. Y’all might want to do something about Trump while he can’t pay his soldiers - might be your last chance.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 3 points 8 months ago

Country, not government. But he isn't far from the former either.

[-] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I know what you mean, but I think that a government shutdown would stop the country eventually. There is too much critical infrastructure that is run by the government. The civil service, no matter how much some people deride it, is the main difference between a functional country and somewhere like Somalia. Somalia should be a republican's wet dream, right? Entrepreneurs can exploit any resources they want, they have no labour board, no safety standards, no corporate income tax. And yet, Somalia has so far failed to overtake the USA as a paragon of innovation and productivity. If anyone wants to see what a country with small government really looks like, they need only look at Somalia.

[-] LunaLoveswood 2 points 8 months ago

I suspect he will simply write a decree that overrides the shutdown and the SCOTUS will allow it even if it may seem to be stopped by a lower court at first. Just. Like. All. The. Other. Shit. He's. Done.

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

What a shithole.

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025

182 points (100.0% liked)

News

37764 readers

2957 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world