Share.

37 Comments

  1. CEOPhilosopher on

    Fucking cocksuckers. Fuck this court and this country. We can’t destroy MAGA fast enough.

  2. Next: Supreme Court throws out California voter supported congressional map because fuck you, that’s why.

  3. lost-picking-flowers on

    Doesn’t the GOP’s success with this map hinge on continued Latino support in Texas?

    I wonder what the honest to god chances of this backfiring on them are? Either way, California is on the right track, next up, Virginia. If we ever want unfucked maps ever again, it’s time to fight fire with fire, imho. Put it to a vote and ensure that it is temporary.

  4. Redshirt_Welshy_Nooo on

    > In its brief order, the Supreme Court said that a lower court that ruled against the map likely did so in error, in part because it failed to honor “the presumption of legislative good faith…”

    1) More shadow docket bullshittery from the extremist mullahs masquerading as Justices.

    2) any presumption of “good faith” on the part of any Republican, legislator or otherwise, is completely misplaced.

  5. obelix_dogmatix on

    > Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote that it was “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” His opinion was joined by two other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    LOL … why care for votes when you can rule

  6. ChrisFromLongIsland on

    Who did not know this was going to be the outcome. SCOTUS is in the tank for the Republicans. This is like the 100th time the lower courts ruled against the Republicans and SCOTUS agreed with the Republicans everytime.

  7. mtnclimbingotter02 on

    The Supreme Court can fuck itself for the rest of their lives.

    Fuck all the conservatives on the court. I hope they enjoy being shitty human beings to fucking enrich themselves.

  8. Aggravating_Rise_179 on

    I dont care if these maps were made purely for political gain, its an affront to democracy and should not be allowed.

    I know the courts are not a democratic institution because they are generally insulated from voters… but this court is the most hostile to democratic principles I have ever seen

  9. HEYYYYYYYY_SATAN on

    > In its brief order, the Supreme Court said that a lower court that ruled against the map likely did so in error, in part because it failed to honor “the presumption of legislative **good faith…**”

    There it is. Watch. All the blue state maps are fixing to get shut tf down by SCOTUS because they weren’t acting in “””good faith”””

  10. AVeryHeavyBurtation on

    Blue states all need to gerrymander the shit out of themselves, until we all agree to make it illegal on the federal level.

  11. Democrats need to expand the court when they get back in power. We are watching a coup happen before our eyes.

  12. CrimsonHeretic on

    We have 6 Supreme Court members who belong in prison for burning the Constitution and the rule of law.

    We have an entire executive branch full of people who belong in prison for flat out ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law.

    We have hundreds of Congresspeople who belong in prison for refusing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

    The entire Republican party is full of racist, fascist domestic terrorists who are hellbent on turning the US into a white Christo-fascist dictatorship while protecting and supporting rapists and pedophiles.

  13. AstutelyPegged on

    Mark my words, the irony of all those lambasting this decision is that it will help Democrats win *more* seats in 2026.

    (It’s still a bad Supreme Court decision, just a bad one that Democrats can readily exploit with the right candidates and electoral approach.)

    Independents have swung so hard against Trump that Republicans can’t afford to divide up their ‘safe’ districts in an attempt to pick up seats without risking a blue wave knocking them off their feet.

    The only way this likely doesn’t happen is with extensive voter suppression, which…yeah, Republicans will absolutely attempt, but I’m not sure if even those efforts will save them. At this point more suppression could only serve to infuriate and polarize most of the country against them.

  14. BleachedUnicornBHole on

    Seeing the swings over the past couple of elections, hopefully this will turn into a FAFO moment.  

  15. Kagan’s dissent makes pretty clear that the Majority are a bunch of hacks that will do anything that helps Republicans, regardless of precedent, or the law. They made a decision without even attempting to review the district court’s mountain of evidence.

    >Over the course of three months, a three-judge District Court in Texas undertook to resolve the factual dispute at issue in this application: In enacting an electoral map slanted toward Republicans, did Texas predominantly use race to draw its new district lines? Or said otherwise, **did Texas accomplish its partisan objectives by means of a racial gerrymander?** **The District Court conducted a nine-day hearing, involving the testimony of nearly two dozen witnesses and the introduction of thousands of exhibits.** **It sifted through the resulting factual record, spanning some 3,000 pages. It assessed the credibility of each of the witnesses it had seen and heard in the courtroom.** And after considering all the evidence, it held that the answer was clear. **Texas largely divided its citizens along racial lines to create its new pro-Republican House map, in violation of the Constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments**. **The court issued a 160-page opinion recounting in detail its factual findings. Yet this Court reverses that judgment based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.** We are a higher court than the District Court, but we are not a better one when it comes to making such a fact-based decision. That is why we are supposed to use a clear-error standard of review—why we are supposed to uphold the District Court’s decision that race-based line-drawing oc-curred (even if we would have ruled differently) so long as it is plausible. Without so much as a word about that standard, this Court today announces that Texas may run next year’s elections with a map the District Court found to have violated all our oft-repeated strictures about the use of race in districting. Today’s order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge—that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right. And today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race. Because this Court’s precedents and our Constitution demand bet-ter, I respectfully dissent.

  16. TheForeverUnbanned on

    Given the swing that happened in Tenn. it’s very likely that this new map is gonna backfire hilariously. Can’t wait.

  17. Mindless_Narwhal2682 on

    How hard was this???

    “The law says remapping is done every 10 years, they are trying to do this in year 5 of 10, it’s illegal. CASE CLOSED.”

    Can we just put wall up Texas? They can take the SCOTUS, we’ll get a better one.

  18. So they co-signed all the other States doing it as well. What the fuck are we actually doing. I remember when America was a world leaders and held up to the pinnacle of modern society. How far we’ve fallen

  19. unplugedanddrugged on

    So sick of the this racist fucking cult court! The people don’t want this shit! Disgraced evil fucks! But no political violence, right? 🖕🏿

  20. So now what? We’re just going to redraw maps on a whim whenever there’s a possibility of extra seats to be gained?

  21. Any Democrat running in 2028 that isn’t campaigning on expanding the Supreme Court isn’t serious about “saving our democracy”.

  22. VirtuaFighter6 on

    They’re gonna need it. Backlash is going to be huge. You aren’t doing your jobs, you must be fired.

  23. Sapient-Inquisitor on

    They are definitely scared of losing the midterms, and losing hard by the looks of it

  24. In a surprise to no one. And if suddenly Democrats win, then they’ll rule that the mid-decade gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Leave A Reply