415

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an emergency bid from Alabama, setting the stage for a new congressional map likely to include a second Black majority district to account for the state’s 27% Black population.

The one-line order reflects that the feelings on the court haven’t changed since June when a 5-4 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court that had ordered the state to redraw its seven-seat congressional map to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

There were no noted dissents.

The case has been closely watched because after the court’s June ruling, Alabama GOP lawmakers again approved a congressional map with only one majority-Black district, seemingly flouting the Supreme Court’s decision that they provide more political representation for the state’s Black residents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 63 points 1 year ago

When you have one of the most conservative SCs in history telling you to redraw the lines, you know shit's fucked up. Alabama doesn't care. It's the armpit of the south. Sorry if you're from Alabama, but you know what your state is.

[-] MelodiousFunk@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

Alabama doesn’t care. It’s the armpit of the south.

Mississippi in shambles

...more than usual, at any rate

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Seriously though, I lived in Mobile and Mississippi was on another level.

Alabama has Huntsville and Auburn and B'Ham that have genuinely good universities and some diversity.

Mississippi has Brett Favre and Elvis. And Elvis moved the hell out as soon as he could.

[-] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago

Special court appointed master already has drawn two black districts. Fucking cope Alabama.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

One of these days, Alabama will do something good of its own volition, and we won't have to drag them kicking and screaming away from being racist.

Some day.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Also SCOTUS has been stacked to side with these people, but are taking plenty of heat for a while do this is for now, to prove they’re not corrupt pieces of garbage, until the slow businessmen’s plot completes.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

More people need to look at the history of that and where those guys went after they got stopped and only got a slap on the wrist.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Sorry, could you please expound a bit?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh dude, you're in for a ride.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#:~:text=The%20Business%20Plot%20

They went on to become big allies with wealth ministry protestants. (Now days we call them evangelists) And used that alliance to slowly push back FDR's New Deal.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Oh. Yeah I know that, it’s been a while and it’s still happening apparently. I was distracted, my b

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
415 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18973 readers
3071 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS