White Supremacist Republicans' Supreme Court to decide if its legal to gerrymander Black Votes out of existence

[Pull Up the Roots]

People were shouted down and called scared when they brought up this potential reality on here and elsewhere. Now here we are. And I bet those same people won't care.

We had a thread yesterday with a dude trying to turn people off from voting. He has a history of denying voting rights were under attack too.

Spoiler

nikka this is not 1965 here y’all go with that “voting rights” shyt.

Make relevant arguments please

Name who lost their voting rights. Who can’t vote in local and national elections. We’ll exclude felons for our purposes here

Sir “voting rights” is not the same as “voter registration and identification schemes” foundational black Americans have fought for and gained their voting rights since 1865, cemented again in 1965.

“Voter rights hysteria” perpetrated by the media and democrat agents on this forum is an attempt to get FBAs to care about a cause that primarily benefits immigrants and democratic immigration policies. Nothing more.

We good. We have our voting rights. Secured by the 13th and 14th amendments of the constitution. So this whole modern scare and fear mongering about “voting rights” is a total nothing burger and a scam

 

[Sukairain]

Has it always been like this? The supreme court I mean. Has it always been so political? It means the institution is completely broken. A court which regulates administrative law is supposed to be apolitical. It's supposed to stop politicians from rigging the system in their favour, not be an active ally in doing that. The whole idea of checks and balances in a constitution relies on the checks and balances constantly fighting against each other, not working together

 

[ORDER_66]

So it's just fukk The Civil Rights Act, huh?

I don't think the civil rights act was codified into actual law. Right???!? thx Democrats...

 

[Reflected]

So it's just fukk The Civil Rights Act, huh?

It's crazy because the Republicans present these cases as being "we don't see race" and them wanting maps that present better representation. Then you look at the maps, and it's like wow, you managed to completely eliminate the power of the black vote, but this clearly isn't based on race, it just so happens that these enclaves of black voters have been partitioned out of effectively participating in the general election...

It's obvious to anyone with a brain, but the justices at that level take the most literal and color blind approach, so unless you come out and say you want to discriminate against black people and weaken their vote, expect your appeal to benefit your party.

But this works two ways, they either grant the appeal and rule in favor or they rule in a manner that makes it such that the previously written map, which is usually gerrymandered to hell for Republicans, has to remain in place because there is no time to go through legal battles about a brand new map. Republicans always win this game.... What do you even do? It's a complex topic, they employ AI for this kind of stuff, and you know most people aren't going to care. I'm trying not to get super doomy about this, but we can't deny reality.

 

[NinoBrown]

Has it always been like this? The supreme court I mean. Has it always been so political? It means the institution is completely broken. A court which regulates administrative law is supposed to be apolitical. It's supposed to stop politicians from rigging the system in their favour, not be an active ally in doing that. The whole idea of checks and balances in a constitution relies on the checks and balances constantly fighting against each other, not working together

It started as retribution for Obama becoming President, the GOP has basically been with the fukk shyt since then.

Trumpism and that is all she wrote, it is the appeal of white supremacy that got him in office and his agents also put into office...

Much of the political discourse is caused by Trump appointed politicians.

 

[Obreh Winfrey]

Has it always been like this? The supreme court I mean. Has it always been so political? It means the institution is completely broken. A court which regulates administrative law is supposed to be apolitical. It's supposed to stop politicians from rigging the system in their favour, not be an active ally in doing that. The whole idea of checks and balances in a constitution relies on the checks and balances constantly fighting against each other, not working together

The court has always had a slant to it, but generally didn't act in a clearly partisan fashion. Almost everything you see now in politics is white people trying to "take their country back". From who? Choose your favorite non-white Boogeyman.

 

[Mike809]

Too bad this thread wont even do half the numbers of the bw vs bm threads we see daily here.

 

[acri1]

Has it always been like this? The supreme court I mean. Has it always been so political? It means the institution is completely broken. A court which regulates administrative law is supposed to be apolitical. It's supposed to stop politicians from rigging the system in their favour, not be an active ally in doing that. The whole idea of checks and balances in a constitution relies on the checks and balances constantly fighting against each other, not working together

Truth be told it was always political. That said it it's definitely more blatant now.

 

[Reflected]

Has it always been like this? The supreme court I mean. Has it always been so political? It means the institution is completely broken. A court which regulates administrative law is supposed to be apolitical. It's supposed to stop politicians from rigging the system in their favour, not be an active ally in doing that. The whole idea of checks and balances in a constitution relies on the checks and balances constantly fighting against each other, not working together

It has always been political, it's just the nature of the SCOTUS. The Republicans just became really fukking dirty, as we should expect, but they did it at a smart time, and were able to shove in too many justices under a very unstable individual, Trump, so now it's clear the justices are just doing what benefits conservatism because no Republican had an issue voting in any conservative justices that were put before them, thus you get literal agents for conservatism.

A large majority of the votes since 5-4 have been bad, the 6-3 votes, you don't even want to see those. In truth, you don't want to see what that current makeup what rule on issues most think are already settled in America.

 

[Obreh Winfrey]

I don't think the civil rights act was codified into actual law. Right???!? thx Democrats...

You could have stopped right there and actually been correct.

P.L. 88-352

www.ssa.gov

Legal Highlight: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

www.dol.gov

In June 1963, President John Kennedy asked Congress for a comprehensive civil rights bill, induced by massive resistance to desegregation and the murder of Medgar Evers. After Kennedy's assassination in November, President Lyndon Johnson pressed hard, with the support of Roy Wilkins and Clarence Mitchell, to secure the bill's passage the following year. In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.

Yeah, thanks Democrats

 

[Renegade47]

And there are people on here who would willingly give away these civil rights just to "stick it" to Democrats.

if democrats did what they were suppose to there wouldnt be a problem

 

[ShaneTheRogue]

Too bad this thread wont even do half the numbers of the bw vs bm threads we see daily here.

Agents infiltrate Black spaces talking about things like that specifically to distract from things like this.

 

[acri1]

You could have stopped right there and actually been correct.

You can't make a thread that's even vaguely about Republicans without dude rushing in to run interference

 

[Bumblebreh]

Has it always been like this? The supreme court I mean. Has it always been so political? It means the institution is completely broken. A court which regulates administrative law is supposed to be apolitical. It's supposed to stop politicians from rigging the system in their favour, not be an active ally in doing that. The whole idea of checks and balances in a constitution relies on the checks and balances constantly fighting against each other, not working together

The same could be said about politics. The government is meant to be secular.

It started as retribution for Obama becoming President, the GOP has basically been with the fukk shyt since then.

Trumpism and that is all she wrote, it is the appeal of white supremacy that got him in office and his agents also put into office...

Much of the political discourse is caused by Trump appointed politicians.

They have been trying since the 1800s.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

if democrats did what they were suppose to there wouldnt be a problem

You don’t even know what you’re saying.