SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

[urherenow]

Then why would you call YOUR OWN answer a Temu answer!? Idiocy.

Yes, you were blown out of the water in no uncertain terms.

- Everyone said they were illegal.
- You said "Nuh-uh! They were ALL da baddies!!!!"
- You were shown that survivors were let go (You don't do that for criminals)
- You said they went to jail in their own countries
- You were shown that they were released in their own country, proving that they were innocent (Or at a minimum had zero evidence because it was blown up)
- You slunk away with your tail between your legs

Slink away, simp.

What got people drooling over the remote possibility of a case against the administration, was the falsely presented story of the "double-tap" incident. False: The allegation that Hegseth gave an order to kill the survivors. False assumption: That they explicitly targeted survivors. The fact is, the boat carrying the drugs did not sink. The Admiral gave the order for a second strike to sink it. Supposedly 2 survivors swam back to the boat to try and flip it back over to save the cargo, and I'm assuming were caught in the blast as a result.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyxjd6pxzro

Bottom line, it's a nothingburger just like everything else you drool over.

I spend more than half of every year out to sea. I don't "slink away", I just lose access to public internet for days at a time, and frankly get bored of arguing with you lot.

 

[SeltzerMist]

The real answer is, because Trump's nationalist policies sit right with them

So you admit the party ideologies have changed since the 1860s and that presently, the KKK and etc are MAGA.

Fact is, it has always been dems from the beginning. And here we are decades after this magic party switch you believe happened... and Turns out Dems are the ones still funding them. I'm not the one moving goal posts. You're just keeping the blinders on, as long as it's blue.

Oh so you just stumbled and contradicted yourself without proof (the Dems funding them please) and continue to double down. Guess we know who failed high school civics

I was never blown out of the water, dumbass. I am also perfectly aware of what "Temu answer" means. I don't need an idiot explaining my own words to me.

Nice crash out.

Yes, Donald Trump has explicitly admonished the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), although he faced significant criticism for not doing so immediately following certain events. [1, 2]
Key Instances of Admonition:

• Charlottesville (August 2017): After initially blaming violence "on many sides," Trump made a subsequent statement in which he declared "racism is evil" and explicitly named the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as "criminals and thugs". He stated that these groups were "repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans".
• Rejection of Endorsements: Trump and his campaigns have at times rejected support from individuals linked to the KKK

No, Trump contradicted himself by saying there were "fine people on both sides" You cannot be on a side with the KKK or neo Nazis and simultaneously be a "fine person"

It's that simple. His denouncement means nothing if you apply just a tiny bit of critical thinking here, but you've demonstrated over the years you lack basic thinking skills. Your repeated crashing out and lashing out with insults supports this.

Like no shit, even the GOP has enough awareness to not directly take an endorsement or campaign donations from said group, but they continue to placate and pander to them.

You're a very embarrassing human being.

 

[titan_tim]

What got people drooling over the remote possibility of a case against the administration, was the falsely presented story of the "double-tap" incident. False: The allegation that Hegseth gave an order to kill the survivors. False assumption: That they explicitly targeted survivors. The fact is, the boat carrying the drugs did not sink. The Admiral gave the order for a second strike to sink it. Supposedly 2 survivors swam back to the boat to try and flip it back over to save the cargo, and I'm assuming were caught in the blast as a result.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyxjd6pxzro

Bottom line, it's a nothingburger just like everything else you drool over.

I spend more than half of every year out to sea. I don't "slink away", I just lose access to public internet for days at a time, and frankly get bored of arguing with you lot.

Shall we take this as another Temu answer? Because it's not what we ordered.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. The main issue isn't the intent to kill with a double tap (Although that alone is a crime). We’re talking about dozens of attacks on small boats, with limited public evidence about what they were. That makes the entire bombing campaign the real issue. As shown to you, there were some survivors who were sent back to their countries, and then released because the evidence didn't show they were smugglers. Under the Geneva Convention, you don’t get to attack first and ask questions later.

The real bottom line is, you're desperate to hand-wave away things that are war crimes because it makes you feel like you made less of a mistake choosing a conman. You try to focus on smaller details from a narrative that was force-fed to you in an attempt to divert away from the larger issues. It's dishonest and transparent.

Feel free to get "bored" with your nose being rubbed in your horrible life choices any time.

 

[Foxi4]

That’s not nice to say like that and black people had centuries of horrible discriminations. Look at American history and tell to yourself.

There is no surprise about black people faced the economically disadvantaged due to past discriminations, especially Tulsa and also US government’s exploitation in black communities during crack epidemic in 1980s.

Want to blur the political advantage with race? You would need to invest and support them with boost the economy in their community that help to create the wealth. That would take decades to narrow the gap with white.

As for court ruling, they didn’t opt to invalidate the Section 2 under VRA, so it is uncertainty and there is no surprise about states want to take advantage of court ruling but it could backfired on states if court flips or backtrack to declare that map is discriminatory. I have to wait and see for follow up with new cases and it wasn’t first time nor last time for court to backtrack, so it could be related to different issues like deliberately packing the minority in one district is unacceptable as same goes with create a majority minority map under 2026 ruling.

It is very complicated case and I don’t have a good outlook about what precedent would be. I’m more favored to ban on all of gerrymandering and require to have fair maps for all states. Also, states have own laws or requirements to draw the map like require to be compact and connected for example.

As for political, the court ruling only affected the house of representative that could be under GOP control for while, even with majority democrats in US senate and president’s office, so senate cannot be gerrymandered. However, if VRA Section 2 is truly unenforceable, it could help the democrats in northern states by dismantle many of majority minority maps and replace with race neutral map that expand from city to rural to make as blue instead of limit to urban only. States with heavily gerrymandered maps run out of option, otherwise gerrymandered maps would end up go opposite instead of try to help the party. Texas, Florida, Maryland and Illinois relied on gerrymandered maps would be in those situation.

Back in 1990s, newly created of majority black districts did help to enable the republicans to take control of the house, but it wasn’t one of only reason, also dissatisfaction with Clinton and more aging southern democrats retired are two other reasons.

It doesn’t have to be “nice”, it’s true. The legislature was bending over backwards to draw a more-or-less random shape on the map that has 51%+ black citizens in it. That’s a racial ghetto. Its explicit purpose was to segregate black voters into one district where they have a majority, disregarding all other guidelines.

They didn't overturn or overrule that left with a lot of questions and assumptions.

States tend to assume that US Supreme Court rulings affect them, despite that only affected Louisiana.

It take multiple cases to set the precedent and sometime, US Supreme Court end up flipped for other case.

Also, US Supreme Court struck Louisiana's 2nd majority black district down in 1990s.

Then the Supreme Court is consistent. I’m not familiar with the proposed boundaries of that map, but if they were anything like this one then the decision is not a shocker.

Adding one or more majority-minority districts is a historical remedy imposed by the courts. When a former Confederate state's white majority pulled all the stops to suppress black voters, the courts got more aggressive in crafting remedies.

Generally, that would be the most severe remedy imposed by a court in a voting rights case. You must add a majority-minority district > you must not eliminate a majority-minority district > you must redo your maps.

VRA section 2:

(a)
No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).
(b)
A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

_____

I think the reason majority-minority districts were such a prominent issue is the "and to elect representatives of their choice" language. Early on, courts just presumed that black voters would want to elect black representatives - and that they would be more likely to vote for one. A majority-minority district is an almost automatic result of those presumptions - and the logical extreme of those presumptions (% race reps = % race voters) is expressly disclaimed by the last sentence.

This case didn't go so far as to ban the creation or maintenance of majority-minority districts, but it made it much harder for lower courts to impose them.

Oh, and as a practical matter, the effects of this decision are likely a good thing for the Democrats, whose likely voters were being packed into majority-minority districts. That is, in the gerrymandering sense, packing voters into a district dilutes their voting power (the inverse of 'cracking', where the gerrymanderer splits up voters into several districts where they are individually outnumbered)

I’m not opposed to the existence of districts where people of colour are the majority of the population if the majority of the population in that area happens to be people of colour - that’s normal. I’m opposed to districts that are drawn in a ridiculous way to meet an equally ridiculous quota. I also fundamentally disagree with the “historically this has been the remedy” point of view - appealing to history is not your friend in regards to civil rights. Just because something’s been done a certain way in the past doesn’t mean that it was good. In the modern era we should be looking beyond race rather than assuming that a district must necessarily have a certain racial breakdown for its inhabitants to be “properly represented”, which is as you say, an assumption that was made in the past without saying it out loud. The VRA was supposed to nullify barriers to voting and barriers to running, nowhere (to my knowledge) does it imply that districts should be segregated by race in order to tweak the outcome, and the assumption that doing so *would* tweak the outcome comes across as inherently racist to me.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Then the Supreme Court is consistent.

Lol only when it comes to favouring Republikkkans otherwise SC judges aren't even consistent with their own interviews.

 

[Foxi4]

Lol only when it comes to favouring Republikkkans otherwise SC judges aren't even consistent with their own interviews.

The funny thing is that the post I’m replying to (accurately) argues that this decision is advantageous to the Democratic Party with which you’re aligned with. Concentrating the “black vote” into one district dilutes their voting power, provided you believe black people are a monolith as opposed to normal people who happen to look a little browner than white people.

 

[Xzi]

The funny thing is that the post I’m replying to (accurately) argues that this decision is advantageous to the Democratic Party with which you’re aligned with. Concentrating the “black vote” into one district dilutes their voting power, provided you believe black people are a monolith as opposed to normal people who happen to look a little browner than white people.

How the hell does having a couple districts with >60% black Democrats "dilute their voting power," but having five districts with <40% black Democrats doesn't? Again, you don't need to play dumb, both parties have enough data points on every individual that their next vote can be predicted with ~95% accuracy.

If Trump as the primary representative of the modern oligarchy didn't have a lower approval rating than Nixon after Watergate, then none of this would be happening right now. It's corruption in plain sight, meant to ensure that 0.1% of the population get to continue raping and pillaging the country uninterrupted.

 

[Moe87]

Then the Supreme Court is consistent. I’m not familiar with the proposed boundaries of that map, but if they were anything like this one then the decision is not a shocker.

No, they didn't if they don't strike the VRA Section 2 down nor overturn Allen v. Milligan, so they said Louisiana case is different from Alabama case rather than overturn Allen v. Milligan. Those are unusual for US Supreme Court because they normally overturn or overrule if there is conflict with other ruling.

Now, you have to wait for future cases to set the precedent like overturn Allen v. Milligan.

It doesn’t have to be “nice”, it’s true. The legislature was bending over backwards to draw a more-or-less random shape on the map that has 51%+ black citizens in it. That’s a racial ghetto. Its explicit purpose was to segregate black voters into one district where they have a majority, disregarding all other guidelines.

Black people aren't ghetto, so enough with racist statement.

Not all majority minority districts are 51% or up, some of them are under 50% like 45% that is intended to prevent the dilation. Also, VRA don't allow the packing in one district unless there is exception like geography and nor is cracking - that was alright in early 1990s but big no today.

Supreme Court only struck the Louisiana map down that used race as major factor, along with irregular shaped, so they haven't issue the opinion with dilation, cracking nor packing yet, so have to wait for other cases.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

The funny thing is that the post I’m replying to (accurately) argues that this decision is advantageous to the Democratic Party with which you’re aligned with.

First of all, I'm anti fascist, not necessarily a democratic party supporter.

Second, this is speculation which may or may not be true.

 

[Xzi]

First of all, I'm anti fascist, not necessarily a democratic party supporter.

Second, this is speculation which may or may not be true.

It's not true, and I've already explained why. Republican governors will use this ruling to further gerrymander red states regardless of voter sentiment, which will gain them seats in government immediately. Democrats will take the issue of counter-gerrymandering to the voters, which will take time and isn't guaranteed to be successful in every blue state. Thus it's a guaranteed net loss for Dems in the short term, which may or may not return to the pre-ruling balance in the long term.

 

[Moe87]

The funny thing is that the post I’m replying to (accurately) argues that this decision is advantageous to the Democratic Party with which you’re aligned with. Concentrating the “black vote” into one district dilutes their voting power, provided you believe black people are a monolith as opposed to normal people who happen to look a little browner than white people.

The race neutral map helped the democrats a lot, especially in 1980s.

Republican Revolution in 1994 wouldn't happened if it wasn't for many majority minority districts but it wasn't primary driver.

There are some democrats welcome the court ruling, so they can dismantle the majority minority districts and replace with race neutral districts that are more advantageous to democrats without constraint imposed under VRA.

Republicans may win the court case in short term but not long term and gerrymandering would become less effective later.

Post automatically merged: May 5, 2026

It's not true, and I've already explained why. Republican governors will use this ruling to further gerrymander red states regardless of voter sentiment, which will gain them seats in government immediately. Democrats will take the issue of counter-gerrymandering to the voters, which will take time and isn't guaranteed to be successful in every blue state. Thus it's a guaranteed net loss for Dems in the short term, which may or may not return to the pre-ruling balance in the long term.

There is good thing about senate cannot be gerrymandered that where decision to confirm the judge rests with senate after the president pick a judge.

It take a lot of time to rebalance the US Supreme Court in case if democrats manage to win the election multiple times in row.

If republicans end up trapped as majority in the house but can't take control of the senate and the president, so it could force the republicans to work with democrats to end the gerrymandering.

Major issue would be total gridlock.

 

[Hanafuda]

Black people aren't ghetto, so enough with racist statement.

Don't criticize another's use of a word if you don't know the meaning of the word. "Ghetto" means an area of a city in which a particular ethnic group is concentrated. It doesn't have to be blacks, there were Jewish ghettoes in Europe leading up to WWII. In fact most usage of the word "ghetto" from 1600 until the 2nd half of the 20th century involved Jews. Only in the USA since the 1950's has the word become more presumed to be in reference to American blacks. And it was a metaphorical comparison, not an accurate usage of the word.

A "ghetto" is an undesirable thing because by concentrating an ethnic population into one area, it makes them more vulnerable to being discriminated against as a whole. But there is always someone who believes that keeping a particular ethnic group concentrated in one place somehow strengthens their electoral power. A convenient argument for the NIMBY types.

 

[Moe87]

Don't criticize another's use of a word if you don't know the meaning of the word. "Ghetto" means an area of a city in which a particular ethnic group is concentrated. It doesn't have to be blacks, there were Jewish ghettoes in Europe leading up to WWII. In fact most usage of the word "ghetto" from 1600 until the 2nd half of the 20th century involved Jews. Only in the USA since the 1950's has the word become more presumed to be in reference to American blacks. And it was a metaphorical comparison, not an accurate usage of the word.

A "ghetto" is an undesirable thing because by concentrating an ethnic population into one area, it makes them more vulnerable to being discriminated against as a whole. But there is always someone who believes that keeping a particular ethnic group concentrated in one place somehow strengthens their electoral power. A convenient argument for the NIMBY types.

Say about ghetto that is related to black neighborhood is disrespectful.

It has nothing with Jewish, so this topic is congressional district that is majority black.

I'm from Alabama that has quarter of black population and went to deaf school that is mixed of black and white, so I know about it and it is very disrespectful to use those term.

Want to say this word? Keep to yourself and it would be super controversial if you tell at black people.

 

[Exidous]

I also fundamentally disagree with the “historically this has been the remedy” point of view - appealing to history is not your friend in regards to civil rights.

Ignorance of history isn't a solution. The entire body of substantive federal law concerning voting districts and race is from and following the Voting Rights Act. And I wasn't "appealing" to history, I was explaining in response to your obviously not even rhetorical question why majority minority districts were created, by order of federal courts, against the wishes of state legislators.

Try it out. You're the judge. The white majority (75%) state of Albion has historically displayed complete electoral dominance over its black minority (25%) - voting patterns are heavily predicted by race. The black minority is located almost entirely in the state capitol city, whose metropolitan area constitutes roughly 55% of Albion's total population. Albion has four congressional districts, two for the capitol metro and two for other areas. The two capitol districts each have a historical voting record of 52.5%-47.5% (which mirrors their racial makeup). The other area districts are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly vote for the winning party in the capitol. The state of Albion has never elected a black congressional representative.

Black voters sued under the VRA and the case ended up before you. They have no recorded evidence of racist statements by the (disproportionate majority) white state legislators who draw the congressional district maps, who generally insist that the districts needed to be drawn and this was a logical and simple way to do it. (the map of the four districts looks something like https://www.123rf.com/photo_101051039_a-circle-is-half-black-and-half-white-vector-illustration.html)

Plaintiffs claim that they lack representation and equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. They plead for the court to order the invalidation of the current district map and the creation of a majority-minority district comprising the areas of the capitol's municipal area with the highest proportion of black residents.

State defendant argues that States properly have the authority to draw their own legislative districts and that Plaintiffs haven't proven their case.

 

[DolphinPussy]

My intuition tells me that there are bad faith actors who are (knowingly or not) conditioned to create a "debate" about current events while being intentionally, or maliciously obtuse about what is happening; instead becoming a distraction by deflecting information, or encircling themselves with a rhetoric, one that is weaponized to drain everyone elses energy and drag discourse to a lower standard.

This is a partisan problem, but of course it has been more commonly employed by conservative, or "MAGA" types as of late. I don't really subscribe to binary thinking patterns, but I do observe them; and that kind of cognitive degradation strategy has worked wonder in making Americans a bunch of shit flinging baboons.

 

[Foxi4]

Black people aren't ghetto, so enough with racist statement.

1. Segregating people into a specific area based on race creates a racial ghetto. It is an accurate description, it’s not supposed to be “nice”. Creating ghettos isn’t “nice” in the first place.

2. The term “ghetto” is not inherently connected with being black. This is a uniquely “American” thing to suggest. I’m Polish, so the concept of a ghetto is not alien to me and I know one when I see one. Precisely zero ghettos in my country were populated by black people, they were almost exclusively Jewish, but the principle is identical. The term would apply all the same if any other race was being segregated.

3. I will continue to use the term “ghetto” when describing ghettos. It is especially poignant when used in reference to historically marginalised groups. You should be more offended by racial segregation in the modern age than you are by a word that describes it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto

Want to say this word? Keep to yourself and it would be super controversial if you tell at black people.

I will not have my language policed. The word is “controversial” because ghettos are undesirable and discriminatory, we should not make more of them. The fact that you recoil at the term should be an indication that segregating people based on race is morally wrong.

Don't criticize another's use of a word if you don't know the meaning of the word. "Ghetto" means an area of a city in which a particular ethnic group is concentrated. It doesn't have to be blacks, there were Jewish ghettoes in Europe leading up to WWII. In fact most usage of the word "ghetto" from 1600 until the 2nd half of the 20th century involved Jews. Only in the USA since the 1950's has the word become more presumed to be in reference to American blacks. And it was a metaphorical comparison, not an accurate usage of the word.

A "ghetto" is an undesirable thing because by concentrating an ethnic population into one area, it makes them more vulnerable to being discriminated against as a whole. But there is always someone who believes that keeping a particular ethnic group concentrated in one place somehow strengthens their electoral power. A convenient argument for the NIMBY types.

Spot-on. The word means something very specific - a designated area that’s been segregated by race. It’s been used in reference to black people in America for a period of time that amounts to a sneeze in historical terms, and even that doesn’t change the meaning here. In fact, it makes its use more appropriate, not less.

How the hell does having a couple districts with >60% black Democrats "dilute their voting power,” (…)

Argue that with the person who said it if you want. I already said my peace throughout the thread and what I mean can be easily inferred. By segregating people into a ridiculously-shaped district based on their race you are reducing their ability to introduce meaningful change to their actual area, you’re restricting them to the area of the arbitrary snake, which is detrimental to their interests. Once again we’re facing the “my neighbour across the street lives in a different district” problem. Districts should not be based on race, they should be based on where and how people live, with respect to pre-existing geopolitical boundaries, because that’s more relevant to people’s day-to-day life as far as local governance is concerned.

Ignorance of history isn't a solution.

You’re supposed to be aware of history specifically for the purposes of not repeating its mistakes. Separating people into groups of varied levels of privilege by law introduces state-mandated inequality. The solution to segregation is to treat everyone equally, not to divide the nation into “classes” based on their immutable characteristics.

 

[Xzi]

By segregating people into a ridiculously-shaped district based on their race you are reducing their ability to introduce meaningful change to their actual area, you’re restricting them to the area of the arbitrary snake, which is detrimental to their interests. Once again we’re facing the “my neighbour across the street lives in a different district” problem. Districts should not be based on race, they should be based on where and how people live, with respect to pre-existing geopolitical boundaries, because that’s more relevant to people’s day-to-day life as far as local governance is concerned.

That's a great sentiment, but one that unfortunately means nothing in reference to this ruling. State courts were already doing the work of striking down gerrymandering based on race. Now gerrymandering based on both race and oppression of popular sentiment will become the default. Red states that have 45% Democratic voters will end up with a total of 10% or less of the state's representatives, and vice-versa for Republican voters in blue states. District lines will become much more disjointed and confusing, not less. Policy on the local level will no longer be geared toward serving the public in those districts, but instead toward serving the donor class, just like federal policy currently is.

 

[Foxi4]

That's a great sentiment, but one that unfortunately means nothing in reference to this ruling. State courts were already doing the work of striking down gerrymandering based on race. Now gerrymandering based on both race and oppression of popular sentiment will become the default. Red states that have 45% Democratic voters will end up with a total of 10% or less of the state's representatives, and vice-versa for Republican voters in blue states. District lines will become much more disjointed and confusing, not less. Policy on the local level will no longer be geared toward serving the public in those districts, but instead toward serving the donor class, just like federal policy currently is.

I disagree - the case sets (another) legal precedent for the public to challenge districts that look like abstract paintings. The future depends on how doggedly the courts will pursue other district challenges going forward. There’s already a pre-existing list of qualities that should be pursued when drawing boundaries, any district that is suspect when looking at those can and should be challenged. In that sense, people’s representation is entirely dependent on how tolerant they are of being fucked with by their legislature.

 

[Xzi]

I disagree - the case sets (another) legal precedent for the public to challenge districts that look like abstract paintings. The future depends on how doggedly the courts will pursue other district challenges going forward. There’s already a pre-existing list of qualities that should be pursued when drawing boundaries, any district that is suspect when looking at those can and should be challenged. In that sense, people’s representation is entirely dependent on how tolerant they are of being fucked with by their legislature.

There is no challenge that can meet the burden of proof that SCOTUS has set. Governors would have to explicitly declare that they're re-drawing districts to favor one party or another, one fiscal class or another, one race or another. Texas was as unsubtle about their motivations as it's ever gonna get, and SCOTUS still rubber stamped Abbott's bullshit.

 

[Moe87]

1. Segregating people into a specific area based on race creates a racial ghetto. It is an accurate description, it’s not supposed to be “nice”. Creating ghettos isn’t “nice” in the first place.

2. The term “ghetto” is not inherently connected with being black. This is a uniquely “American” thing to suggest. I’m Polish, so the concept of a ghetto is not alien to me and I know one when I see one. Precisely zero ghettos in my country were populated by black people, they were almost exclusively Jewish, but the principle is identical. The term would apply all the same if any other race was being segregated.

3. I will continue to use the term “ghetto” when describing ghettos. It is especially poignant when used in reference to historically marginalised groups. You should be more offended by racial segregation in the modern age than you are by a word that describes it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto

It is not problem if you went depth with ghetto term and it depends on term are you using.

but as for personal chat like saying shopping plaza in Huffman is ghetto is kinda insulting to black community. If you come to comment on FB post about how ghetto is shopping plaza, black commenters will criticize you harshly or insult you based on your race.

You are fortunate that I'm not people of color and I just make you aware if you are going to post in somewhere. After that post, I just backoff.

I will not have my language policed. The word is “controversial” because ghettos are undesirable and discriminatory, we should not make more of them. The fact that you recoil at the term should be an indication that segregating people based on race is morally wrong.

See above, I'm just made awareness and no, I'm not interested to police your language, but black people would do if you did causally.

I thought some portion of your post was causal but realized that you means ghetto for segregated place.

Now with your detailed post, I got your point and I'm just move on.

That's a great sentiment, but one that unfortunately means nothing in reference to this ruling. State courts were already doing the work of striking down gerrymandering based on race. Now gerrymandering based on both race and oppression of popular sentiment will become the default. Red states that have 45% Democratic voters will end up with a total of 10% or less of the state's representatives, and vice-versa for Republican voters in blue states. District lines will become much more disjointed and confusing, not less. Policy on the local level will no longer be geared toward serving the public in those districts, but instead toward serving the donor class, just like federal policy currently is.

That why I support Fair Representation Act.

I do think that we will get hardline democrat that is democrat version of Trump and republicans aren't going to like it. It wouldn't be issue if republicans and democrats are fair with power sharing at first place.