The US Supreme Court and its decisions
- Thread starter Patch
- Start date
Supreme Court allows Texas to use new congressional district map drawn to favor Republicans
Texas officials drew the new congressional map to help Republicans gain up to five additional seats in the House in next year's midterm elections.
www.nbcnews.com
A ruling against California's redistricting is forthcoming, I'm sure.
Isn't the new map built around having the latino vote... when they don't anymore. Won't it be at least a wash in terms of output?
It backfiring on them would be sweet sweet irony...
It IS entirely possible that this whole thing might backfire. Gerrymandering works, in theory, by diluting the opposition vote. While this does mean fewer districts with concentrated opposition (thus lowering the likelihood of the opposition winning those districts), in practice, it also means that more opposition votes exist in each of the districts than before.
And when you combine it with very well documented upswings in democrat votes...
Yea, The last special election in TN the Democratic candidate lost by between 8 and 9 points, in the 2024 house election in the same district the democrat lost by over 20 points. That's a massive swing. Swing house districts all over the nation are going to flip blue at this rate.
Ran across this comment on a YouTube video and I think it effectively summarizes what WILL happen WHEN the Supreme Court rules against Birthright Citizenship (and you know they are, don't delude yourself);
While I don't trust the current Supreme Court to rule correctly on something even as minor as a parking violation, I don't quite think they will be willing to end birthright citizenship, at least not yet. If the Republicans can hold both houses after the mid-terms, they MIGHT try something like this, but as it stands ruling against the 14th could backfire drastically and end up getting the Democrats enough votes in the house and senate to impeach not just the president but a few of the justices as well. There's also a LOT of infighting on the Republican side right now and I'd half expect that to spill over into the Supreme Court as well.
Ending birthright citizenship is a civil war sparking event.
Point blank. Ruling that the Trump Administration can arbitrarily decide who is and who isn't a citizen is an immediate call to war.
I know Alito and Thomas are psychotic enough to pull the trigger, but are the others? Kavanaugh perhaps, but Roberts, even for all his flaws, knows exactly what happens next.
Point blank. Ruling that the Trump Administration can arbitrarily decide who is and who isn't a citizen is an immediate call to war.
I know Alito and Thomas are psychotic enough to pull the trigger, but are the others? Kavanaugh perhaps, but Roberts, even for all his flaws, knows exactly what happens next.
Pretty sure that's exactly what Roberts string-pullers want. They clearly have the military firmly in pocket (anybody outside of one general refuse to follow an illegal order yet?) and if they can declare anybody they want a non-citizen then I only see one outcome, and it probably won't be good for their opposition.
I would refute that they have the military in their pocket. Oh, they have some soldiers, yes, but from the outside looking in it feels like most in the military are less than pleased with Trump, much less his boozy 'sec of war'.
I do not think they have the military's support in this.
Look at ICE, for example, their 'we'll take anyone' gestapo. They're having so much issue getting qualified people that they're taking the Pilsbury Proud Boys and stuffing 20 pounds of lard in 10 pound plate carriers. They do not enjoy the backing of most people otherwise they'd have already made the play and been done with it.
heh heh... pilsbury proud boys...
Good chunk of the military are minorities and first or second generation US citizens. There's also over 40000 soldiers who aren't US citizens. Granted they already kicked out us trans people, so I could see them doing the same for non-citizens. You're gonna have more and more people with military training forced out. Combine that with those leaving in disgust and you have resistance forces ready to go, if it comes to that(really hoping it doesn't). Getting equipment will still be difficult, but the US military tends to have issues fighting poorly armed insurgents.
The us military has entire divisions whose sole purpose is to fight poorly armed, poorly trained, popular insurgencies.
Those divisions look like the people they are trying to fight. They'll also be targeted by the supreme court should they make a supremely bad decision. All that experience will be used for something else. This would start combat on american soil.
Conversely, people would suddenly be FAR less concerned with shooting back at ice. Wouldn't be a problem to pop a few tubes of proud boys.
Those divisions look like the people they are trying to fight. They'll also be targeted by the supreme court should they make a supremely bad decision. All that experience will be used for something else. This would start combat on american soil.
Conversely, people would suddenly be FAR less concerned with shooting back at ice. Wouldn't be a problem to pop a few tubes of proud boys.
Supreme Court to decide how 1988 videotape privacy law applies to online video
Salazar v. Paramount hinges on video privacy law's definition of "consumer."
arstechnica.com
Do we have to pretend we don't know how SCOTUS is going to rule?
I've never even heard of that law. No points for guessing why it exists, but I would like to know which specific member(s) of Congress got ratted out to the press by the store they bought their porn from and then proceeded to sponsor the bill. Because you know they wouldn't dare protect the privacy of the common man unless they had been scared into realizing it was in their own best interests.
EDIT: Sometimes I forget I can just look this stuff up. Turns out it's a lot more boring than that; it was (failed) Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and it was just a regular video store where he had rented perfectly normal movies. I still maintain that the implied threat to other public figures was obvious.
EDIT: Sometimes I forget I can just look this stuff up. Turns out it's a lot more boring than that; it was (failed) Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and it was just a regular video store where he had rented perfectly normal movies. I still maintain that the implied threat to other public figures was obvious.
Last edited:
Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs in a major blow to the president
The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using an emergency law.
www.nbcnews.com