3 ms·

You're linking to a partisan hit piece from a biased news source desperately trying to create a racial narrative out of standard faire politics, because that's

You're linking to a partisan hit piece from a biased news source desperately trying to create a racial narrative out of standard faire politics, because that's what sells clicks to people that get worked up about such things even in the absence of real substance.

ceejayoz 3y ago
I'm linking to news coverage of the Supreme Court (currently with substantial conservative lean) twice knocking down gerrymandered maps intended to reduce the likelihood of black congressional representation. Pick another source (or read the decision itself; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf) if you like, but none of the facts here are in meaningful dispute.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Gerrymandered districts are a joke and its hard to believe anyone actually supports the concept of arbitrarily scribbling awkward shapes on the map that have nothing to do with town, city, community or county boundaries, but here we are. They struck it down for legal reasons, not for racial reasons. These are standard back and forth trench warfare politics over territory, and of course one side used yellow journalism to attack the other, as the case has always been. I honestly hate that the whole gerrymandering system even exists. It's a terrible waste and it further divorces our representatives from actually fighting for specific communities at the national level. It also entrenches incumbents and its the biggest reason why Congress has turned into a giant nursing home for sociopaths well past their prime, but I digress. CNN has been a joke and has beat that drum for a long time: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/reactions-jussie-smollett/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/reactions-jussi...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    "They struck it down for legal reasons, not for racial reasons." That's a lie. From the linked opinion: > Finally, the District Court concluded that plaintiffs had carried their burden at the totality of circumstances stage given the racial polarization of elections in Alabama, where “Black Alabamians enjoy virtually zero success in statewide elections” and where “Alabama’s extensive history of repugnant racial and vot- ing-related discrimination is undeniable and well documented.” The Court sees no reason to disturb the District Court’s careful factual findings, which are subject to clear error review and have gone unchal- lenged by Alabama in any event. The "legal reason" is the "racial reason" here. (You don't have to trust CNN, though. "... the high court upheld a three-judge panel's ruling that the state illegally diluted the political power of Black voters by having only one majority Black congressional district..." - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alabama-lawmakers-redraw-congressional-maps-supreme-court-ruled-unfair-black-voters https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alabama-lawmakers-redraw-co...)

ceejayoz 3y ago

I'm linking to news coverage of the Supreme Court (currently with substantial conservative lean) twice knocking down gerrymandered maps intended to reduce the likelihood of black congressional representation. Pick another source (or read the decision itself; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf) if you like, but none of the facts here are in meaningful dispute.

chrisco255 3y ago
Gerrymandered districts are a joke and its hard to believe anyone actually supports the concept of arbitrarily scribbling awkward shapes on the map that have nothing to do with town, city, community or county boundaries, but here we are. They struck it down for legal reasons, not for racial reasons. These are standard back and forth trench warfare politics over territory, and of course one side used yellow journalism to attack the other, as the case has always been. I honestly hate that the whole gerrymandering system even exists. It's a terrible waste and it further divorces our representatives from actually fighting for specific communities at the national level. It also entrenches incumbents and its the biggest reason why Congress has turned into a giant nursing home for sociopaths well past their prime, but I digress. CNN has been a joke and has beat that drum for a long time: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/reactions-jussie-smollett/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/reactions-jussi...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  "They struck it down for legal reasons, not for racial reasons." That's a lie. From the linked opinion: > Finally, the District Court concluded that plaintiffs had carried their burden at the totality of circumstances stage given the racial polarization of elections in Alabama, where “Black Alabamians enjoy virtually zero success in statewide elections” and where “Alabama’s extensive history of repugnant racial and vot- ing-related discrimination is undeniable and well documented.” The Court sees no reason to disturb the District Court’s careful factual findings, which are subject to clear error review and have gone unchal- lenged by Alabama in any event. The "legal reason" is the "racial reason" here. (You don't have to trust CNN, though. "... the high court upheld a three-judge panel's ruling that the state illegally diluted the political power of Black voters by having only one majority Black congressional district..." - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alabama-lawmakers-redraw-congressional-maps-supreme-court-ruled-unfair-black-voters https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alabama-lawmakers-redraw-co...)