SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

Reualed · Apr 30, 2026

Moe87 said:
New picture would be democrat controlled president and senate with republican control the house due to gerrymandering with house seats - it lead to complete gridlock.

Not quite, many of the gerrymanders GOP has been doing has been dummymanders. And the GOP is already not doing so well with even white voters.

I suspect a complete blow out of the GOP. The gerrymanders are going to be too little too late. And with democrats deciding to no longer hold their punches, it would not shock me if they get aggressive with gerrymanders. GOP can't squeeze that many more seats since they've already been relying on it, Democrats can.

It's not ideal, it's not wanted. This could of been avoided had the GOP voted to stop gerrymandering with Democrats back in 2021.
But at this point they don't leave a choice.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

I think the SCOTUS reached the right decision. Redistricting explicitly based on race is called segregation and it ended in the 1960’s. Section 2 specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, and if charting a district based on how many people of a certain colour are in it isn’t discrimination then I don’t know what is. I don’t know why we’re supposed to treat black people like a monolith just because they’re black, people’s interests don’t align based on their skin. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that this affects representation, districts should be based on the communities they represent, not racial demographics. The law shouldn’t be based on colour.

Reualed · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
I think the SCOTUS reached the right decision. Redistricting explicitly based on race is called segregation and it ended in the 1960’s.

Fuck off.

The entire fucking point of section 2 was to prevent exactly what the GOP is about to do next, absolutely completely erase people of color voters off the fucking map.

It was created because in that exact fucking time period, in history, black people were so severely gerrymandered that their vote didn't fucking matter. And instead, here we have is a horrible mod that should get fired.

Foxi4 said:
I don’t know why we’re supposed to treat black people like a monolith just because they’re black, people’s interests don’t align based on their skin

FUCKING RACISM IS A MONOLITH AGAINST SKIN
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. People's racist interests absolutely fucking align based on OTHER PEOPLE'S SKIN.

WHY DO YOU THINK BLACK VOTERS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS? IS IT BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FUCKING RACIST TO FUCKING SHIT?!

where do you fucking think you get the likes of fox news and other right wing racist nuts going that they wouldn't trust a fucking black pilot.

SeltzerMist · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
I think the SCOTUS reached the right decision. Redistricting explicitly based on race is called segregation and it ended in the 1960’s.

What a stupid and quite frankly, fucking embarrassing remark to make.

Reualed said:
where do you fucking think you get the likes of fox news and other right wing racist nuts going that they wouldn't trust a fucking black pilot.

Just a reminder that this moderator denied that Trump committed sexual assault (rape per a judge clarifying the dictionary definition) and their avatar of choice also paints a picture.

This is not someone to be taken seriously.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

Reualed said:
Fuck off.

The entire fucking point of section 2 was to prevent exactly what the GOP is about to do next, absolutely completely erase people of color voters off the fucking map.

It was created because in that exact fucking time period, in history, black people were so severely gerrymandered that their vote didn't fucking matter. And instead, here we have is a horrible mod that should get fired.

FUCKING RACISM IS A MONOLITH AGAINST SKIN
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. People's racist interests absolutely fucking align based on OTHER PEOPLE'S SKIN.

WHY DO YOU THINK BLACK VOTERS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS? IS IT BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FUCKING RACIST TO FUCKING SHIT?!

where do you fucking think you get the likes of fox news and other right wing racist nuts going that they wouldn't trust a fucking black pilot.

SeltzerMist said:
What a stupid and quite frankly, fucking embarrassing remark to make.

“Districts shouldn’t be charted based on skin colour” is not a controversial position, race should not be a factor.

SeltzerMist said:
Just a reminder that this moderator denied that Trump committed sexual assault (rape per a judge clarifying the dictionary definition) and their avatar of choice also paints a picture.

This is not someone to be taken seriously.

I’ll happily repeat what I said, you don’t have to paraphrase me - Trump was never found guilty of rape, or sexual assault for that matter, in any court of law. He was found liable for battery in civil court. The judge’s personal opinion on the matter is immaterial and doesn’t align with what the law states or what the facts indicate.

Reualed · Apr 30, 2026

SeltzerMist said:
Just a reminder that this moderator denied that Trump committed sexual assault (rape per a judge clarifying the dictionary definition) and their avatar of choice also paints a picture.

This is not someone to be taken seriously.

I don't care, he should be outright gone for that take alone. He gives legitimacy to the pieces of shit that would want the United States to turn into an authortian racist shithole, and I am so fucking tired of being civil about it.

SeltzerMist · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
“Districts shouldn’t be charted based on skin colour” is not a controversial position, race should not be a factor.

Is this what was genuinely happening? Can you prove this without a doubt?

Reualed said:
I don't care, he should be outright gone for that take alone. He gives legitimacy to the pieces of shit that would want the United States to turn into an authortian racist shithole, and I am so fucking tired of being civil about it.

Right, dude is a fucking fascist apologist and we all know it.

Reualed · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
“Districts shouldn’t be charted based on skin colour” is not a controversial position, race should not be a factor.

GREAT
TELL THAT TO THE RACIST PIECES OF SHIT
Because that's exactly what they fucking did before, and they'll happily do it again. It became a factor because those groups had been reliably fucking suppressed. IT BECAME a factor, because people's fucking racism against people of color doesn't just fucking magically leave, and it never fucking has, and kept crawling back up.

Because racists DON'T want those people in power.

DiscostewSM · Apr 30, 2026

Figures, the more power racists get, the more they are willing to admit they are racist like it should be normal. Same goes for their followers.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

SeltzerMist said:
Is this what was genuinely happening? Can you prove this without a doubt?

Yes, I can, because the map was redrawn in 2024 specifically to create a second “majority black” district after a court order. Race was *the* explicit reason why it was drawn the way it was, like a ridiculous snake, and a source of much controversy at the time.

Right, dude is a fucking fascist apologist and we all know it.

You’re the guys who are fixated on race. I don’t care what colour the inhabitants of a given district are, they may as well be magenta.

Reualed · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
Yes, I can, because the map was redrawn in 2024 specifically to create a second “majority black” district after a court order. Race was *the* explicit reason why it was drawn the way it was - like a ridiculous snake, and a source of much controversy at the time.

BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS DISTRICT WAS FUCKING RACIST. JESUS CHRIST.
Because they originally suppressed people of color, so hard through due gerrymandering. that they realized that oh, shit, we make it so they have less representation than they should.

Post automatically merged: Apr 30, 2026

And then some white people had a fucking problem with it, and sued to reverse the map.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

Reualed said:
BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS DISTRICT WAS FUCKING RACIST. JESUS CHRIST.
Because they originally suppressed people of color, so hard through due gerrymandering. that they realized that oh, shit, we make it so they have less representation than they should.

Post automatically merged: Apr 30, 2026

And then some white people had a fucking problem with it, and sued to reverse the map.

That’s what the judge *claims*, and the legislature acted upon it, poorly. I personally don’t treat black people as a monolith and don’t think they need special districts dedicated just for them because their skin is a certain shade. Third time lucky, they should try to chart fairly balanced districts, based on factors that actually matter.

SeltzerMist · Apr 30, 2026

So,,, 2 "black" districts out of 6 in a state where they make up 1/3rd of the population...

Dude needs to go back to middle school or something this is embarrassing.

Post automatically merged: Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
they should try to chart fairly balanced districts, based on factors that actually matter.

Foxi4 said:
That’s what the judge *claims*

And there's the pattern.

"Claims"

Just like the judge that "claimed" Trump was found liable of rape. You're so obvious dude.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

SeltzerMist said:
So,,, 2 "black" districts out of 6 in a state where they make up 1/3rd of the population...

Dude needs to go back to middle school or something this is embarrassing.

Post automatically merged: Apr 30, 2026

You’ve already lost me when you said they’re “black districts”. I don’t care about that, and neither should you. As a voter I have *way* more in common with a black guy who lives in my neighbourhood/close to it and has similar income to me than I do with a white guy who lives in the hills on the other end of the “district” and golfs for a living. What affects him doesn’t affect me, and vice versa. There are *way* more important socio-economic and geographical factors at play than someone being more or less tanned and until you can get your head out of that mental rut you’re in, you’ll keep spouting unintentionally racist nonsense like this.

SeltzerMist said:
And there's the pattern.

"Claims"

Just like the judge that "claimed" Trump was found liable of rape. You're so obvious dude.

Why would I care what the judge thinks? It was a civil jury trial. The judge was just presiding, what he thinks personally doesn’t matter, to me or in the eyes of the law. It’s just a guy in a fancy wig.

SeltzerMist · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
You’ve already lost me when you said they’re “black districts”. I don’t care about that, and neither should you. As a voter I have *way* more in common with a black guy who lives in my neighbourhood/close to it and has similar income to me than I do with a white guy who lives in the hills on the other end of the “district” and golfs for a living. What affects him doesn’t affect me, and vice versa. There are *way* more important socio-economic and geographical factors at play than someone being more or less tanned and until you can get your head out of that mental rut you’re in, you’ll keep spouting unintentionally racist nonsense like this.

Some "You're the real racist" nonsense in this.

Again, you're so fucking obvious dude.

Also, if it helps, land mass isn't sentient nor does it vote, and you in particular need a reminder on this.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

SeltzerMist said:
Some "You're the real racist" nonsense in this.

Again, you're so fucking obvious dude.

I 100% believe that charting districts explicitly based on the race of their inhabitants is racial discrimination. You are discriminating, and you’re doing it based on race. It’s the textbook definition of the term, this isn’t even a debate worth having.

SeltzerMist said:
Also, if it helps, land mass isn't sentient nor does it vote, and you in particular need a reminder on this.

Geographical location is extremely indicative of sentiment, a farmer living in the country *does* have different priorities than someone who lives in the big city. The farmer cares about agricultural policy, the big city slicker cares about public transport and footpaths. At almost no point do their interests align and the only time they see each other is when they’re shopping at the nearest Wal-Mart, that’s just a fact, whether they’re black, white or purple.

SeltzerMist · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
I 100% believe that charting districts explicitly based on the race of their inhabitants is racial discrimination. You are discriminating, and you’re doing it based on race. It’s the textbook definition of the term, this isn’t even a debate worth having.

So the 5 districts drawn being predominantly white previously, wasn't racist. Just a big coincidence, to you.

This is what you are going with? Yes or no.

Foxi4 said:
Geographical location is extremely indicative of sentiment, a farmer living in the country *does* have different priorities than someone who lives in the big city. The farmer cares about agricultural policy, the big city slicker cares about public transport and footpaths. At almost no point do their interests align and the only time they see each other is when they’re shopping at the nearest Wal-Mart, that’s just a fact, whether they’re black, white or purple.

Baseless generalizations :wacko:

Also if farmers actually cared they wouldn't have voted for Trump and ended up in a bailout situation lmao.

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

SeltzerMist said:
So the 5 districts drawn being predominantly white previously, wasn't racist. Just a big coincidence, to you.

This is what you are going with? Yes or no.

I made no comment on the previous map because it’s irrelevant to the current one, I explicitly stated that a new map should be charted based on relevant geographical and socio-economic factors, not race. Whatever preconceived notions you might have are your cross to bear, I couldn’t be any clearer. The decision should result in a new map that balances the interests of the electorate.

SeltzerMist said:
Baseless generalizations

That’s rich coming from the “all black people belong in this special snake-shaped basket because they’re black and vote the same way” guy. I promise you with a high degree of certainty that no city slicker has ever contemplated buying a tractor for their daily commute, so no, they do not face the same decisions every day and yes, they should have representation that actually represents their interests, regardless of what colour they are.

SeltzerMist · Apr 30, 2026

Foxi4 said:
I explicitly stated that a new map should be charted based on relevant geographical and socio-economic factors, not race. Whatever preconceived notions you might have are your cross to bear, I couldn’t be any clearer. The decision should result in a new map that balances the interests of the electorate.

So not where tax payers reside?

Foxi4 · Apr 30, 2026

SeltzerMist said:
So not where tax payers reside?

You have to make up your mind on whether geographical location is a matter of concern to you or not, you can’t hold two diametrically opposed ideas in your head at the same time. Place of residence is relevant, that’s why a ridiculous district that stretches like a line across the entire state makes no actual sense.

SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum