Comments posted organically
Homepage

Epstein vote (not gonna go away...) is perfect op for GOP
Government by Indy! (0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (2 comments)


The bad news is that the Trump administration is corrupt. The good news is that they are incompetent.
Law by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (4 comments)


It ain't gonna go away.
Hobbies by Ponderer (3.8) Last comment by: Indy! (61 comments)


Have you guys seen Musk's dad?
Fact Check by Indy! (0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments)


Newsweek: Katie Wilson Wins Seattle Election as City Gets Its Own Version of Mamdani
Politics by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments)


Welocme to Socialism! You don't get paid for a better job!
Machinery & Tools by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (11 comments)


Update on Opening the Government
Games & Toys by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments)


What happens now?????
Politics by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (25 comments)


If Trump is innocent why is he pressuring members of Congress to remove their names from discharge petition?
Crime by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments)


America is a Banana Republic
Government by Donna (5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (54 comments)


15 videos show how Portland protesters countered Trump’s rhetoric with whimsy and humor
Humor by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (1 comments)


Any predictions on what happens with health insurance reform after the House passes the Senate version of the CR?
Health by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (14 comments)


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Supreme Court seems likely to limit race-based electoral districts under Voting Rights Act
By HatetheSwamp
October 16, 2025 4:32 am
Category: Law
(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post & Tips.

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


pb's been pointing out for years here that much of the woke and progressive agenda is in place because court’s foisted it, But, this is a "democracy.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people," BABY!

The court’s six conservative justices seemed like they would vote to effectively strike down a Black majority House district in Louisiana because it relied too heavily on race, as lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration tried to persuade the court to wipe the district away.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called on the high court to create a “workable system” and “fix” the map-drawing process that she believes they broke to begin with.

“Our Legislature has been acting in good faith… in trying to comply with both the Voting Rights Act and the court’s jurisprudence. But it is an impossible task,” Murrill told reporters.

The inside of the courtroom was staid for much of the hearing with the liberal justices all clearly defending the continued existence of Section 2. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the most animated of the justices, when she questioned Edward Greim, the attorney for the current plaintiffs and asked if the standard for bringing voting rights cases would be to show “intentional” racial discrimination.

The justices can issue rulings whenever they are complete, however. The timing of a ruling could matter – if it is in favor of Louisiana, an earlier ruling could have a bigger impact on the midterms elections.


Cited and related links:

  1. apnews.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Supreme Court seems likely to limit race-based electoral districts under Voting Rights Act":

  1. by oldedude on October 16, 2025 8:00 pm
    I haven't delved into this much. My guess is that it's hard to fix voting districts on racial lines. That seems off to me. Did LA say that "all blacks vote the same so we should do that?" or that all whites vote the same?

    The antithesis of this is... There has been no direction about how districts should be drawn. Two arguments here. ONE: It's the state's rights issue. (which just got shot down in LA), Are they going to give guidance? That would be nice, and it can't be "directive" in nature. That violates the states rights.

    So I understand what LA is talking about, and I don't think the answer is in SCOTUS. AND "SOMEONE" needs to give some f***ing guidance to the states.

    Thusly the conundrum of a "Republic."


  2. by Indy! on October 17, 2025 9:08 am

    The court’s six conservative justices seemed like they would vote to effectively strike down a Black majority House district in Louisiana because itthe Court relied too heavily on race, as lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration tried to persuade the court to wipe the district away with suitcases full of cash, lucrative vacation packages and local street prostitutes.


  3. by Indy! on October 17, 2025 9:11 am
    Try again... I fixed it for you (and me)...

    "The court’s six conservative justices seemed like they would vote to effectively strike down a Black majority House district in Louisiana because it the six Clowns relied too heavily on race, as lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration tried to persuade the court to wipe the district away with suitcases full of cash, lucrative vacation packages and local street prostitutes."


  4. by Indy! on October 17, 2025 9:11 am

    I love this 198os tech.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Supreme Court seems likely to limit race-based electoral districts under Voting Rights Act"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page