• YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    If there are no consequences here…that means states can just keep enforcing gun bans SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional and that all rulings from the Supreme Court have no merit.

    • Raging LibTarg@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      As there are no real consequences for the corruption in the supreme court, there will be none for those who ignore their decisions.

      “Now let them enforce it” -Some racist dickhead president the Orange One idolizes-

  • WilliamTheWicked@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And yet, they’re 10th in line holding their hands out for federal funding. Seems like it’s time to shut off the tap and see how strong their disgusting ass convictions are.

    • uberkalden@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Opposing districting that is explicitly designed to lessen the voting power of black people isn’t opposing racism?

    • halferect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They fully recognize race is a factor. They are only recognizing two distant areas with a high population of black people shouldn’t be one district. If you look at the map it’s grouping two random areas together that’s are not even close and it just happens to be areas with more black people. Democrats recognize race and that it plays a factor in this country, republicans deny race exists and that it plays a factor while designing a system that systematically targets people of color.

  • tallwookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    why do the Democrats want to redistrict? is it because they’re losing? some other reason?

    • Bluskale@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      1/7 districts (14%) were majority black, but the population is 27% black. The argument was that the black voters were unfairly concentrated into one district and diluted into the other 6 so as to limit their effective representation in the government.

      • tallwookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        63
        ·
        1 year ago

        who forced them to live in that district? couldnt they just move? presumably they’d move somewhere else, not stay in Alabama

        • halferect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why should they move?it’s their homes, their lives. Should we just make a state for black people? Or instead represent the people fairly. If you look at the maps it’s pretty obvious they cut the districts to give black people less representation

        • Stoneykins@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you suddenly got notified that the place you live has been redistricted to put you in a district which reduces your voting power, would you be ok with your “solution” of uprooting your entire life, changing jobs, finding a new place to stay, and re-registering to vote? Or would you maybe pursue a less completely-insane solution to the problem?

        • Countess425@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the point of having elections is to represent the people who live in a place, not changing the demographics of a place to reflect the government a political party wants.