• ryper@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    In a brief order, the conservative majority argued, among other things, that the District Court had intervened to block the maps too close to next year’s midterm election.

    Eleven months away is too close to the next election for these clowns.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      The decision has nothing to do with their stated reasons; they are in favor of racism, but don’t want to say so

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Fuck that shit. They use this argument whenever it suits them. And what suits this fascist admin, suits the SCOTUS.

      Didn’t Trump himself appoint SCOTUS judges “too close” to the election? Clowns.

      • Thebular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Barrett, for starters. Nominated 38 days prior to the 2020 election, and confirmed just 8 days prior.

    • HocEnimVeni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Dont forget 9 months is too close to an election to approve a supreme court justice nomination, unless the president is Republican and then less than a month is plenty of time

    • howl2@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Especially since the maps were drawn up new a month ago. Or should I read more carefully?

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Texas passed their new maps on August 29th. On November 18 the district court ordered them to revert to their previous maps.

      Apparently the SC’s Republican cult members think this will be too difficult for Texas?

      • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Same bullshit that Mitch McConnell claimed why Obama couldn’t appoint a Supreme Court justice fuck this illegmeaite Supreme Court.

        • TacoSocks@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          And then did a speed run to install a Supreme Court Justice like 45 days before an election under Trump.

      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Fellow being, this particular mask has been off ever since Donny the Destroyer appointed his cronies to be SCOTUS judges - “too close” to the election, btw.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Given the midterms are every two years, 12 months is the furthest you can get from an election on either side

  • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The Supreme Kangaroo Court of the United States strikes again. It’s kind of amazing that out of 9 justices we have 2 avowed rapists, not to mention several christian nationalists.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I 100% blame the Democratic party for this. They’ve been assisting the Republicans in their efforts to create this court for the last 40 years. Thomas should never have been confirmed to the court and Ruth Bader Ginsberg hung on at a time when she should have left while the “liberal” dems controlled both the presidency and the Senate and could easily have replaced her with a(n at least mostly) liberal justice.

      • immutable@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s also frustrating that they let a seat be stolen.

        McConnell invents a rule out of whole cloth and blocks an appointment.

        The Dems could have played hard ball, they could have gone with the line that the senate was fulfilling its role of advising and consenting by not holding a vote. They want it to be read as a rejection, make them hold a vote, say that no vote means they are fine with it.

        Republicans exceed their powers every time they have them to reshape this country to their vision. Democrats refuse to use the full scope of their power to accomplish anything.

        Repeat ad nauseam.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I would still place some blame on Republicans for insisting on nominating sexual offenders, corrupt pieces of shit, etc. Yes the Dems should have done more to stop them, but i think the GOP should bear some responsibility for being sociopaths

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Blaming Republicans is like blaming a wolf for eating a chicken. It’s in their nature, it’s what they do. So no, I’m going to blame the farmer for allowing the wolf into the chicken coop in the first place.

          • TheGoldenV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Don’t blame the murderer, it’s just in their nature. Hmmm…. Pretty shit take TBH. Dems are chickenshit fail lovers, but let’s be real. The reason the SC is loaded with these scumbags is due to Republicans, Bitch McTurtle, and the Fed Soc.

    • DokPsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Does it even fucking matter at this point? There will be zero repercussions for the blatant disregard for the law to serve the authoritarian regime so they can say whatever they want

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    If it’s too close to the election they need to approve a bill through legislature that changes need to happen before a specific number of days before an election, otherwise they are just legislating from the bench pretending it’s legal. Which is obviously the case here because they can’t argue justifications for their racist bullshit in an open forum. “The government can break the law whenever it wants, what are you going to do about it” seems to be the SC opinion here.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Redistricting unrelated to a change in the number of seats should be banned.

      But if we are going to allow them, they should not be allowed to take effect until the following election cycle. This would give the court time to review the maps as well as allow the voters to have input prior to the change.

    • blitzen@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I obviously disagree with this ruling, but if they were to rule the opposite on California, the absolute sheer corruptness would be undeniable. And worthily of drastic and dramatic action on our (the citizens) part.

  • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The way that special election in Tennessee went, instead of picking up five seats, they’re liable to only be left with five seats (after all, you can’t grab more districts without weakening your hold on others).

  • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    We should start calling it Robertsmander rather than Gerrymander from now on. If having no shame while he’s living has no effect, then the best he deserves is his name being tarnished and synonymous with corruption for hundreds of years.