General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSCOTUS reverses a decision that had struck down a South Carolina congressional district as a racial gerrymander
@mjs_DC
The Supreme Court's second decision is Alexander v. SC NAACP. By a 63 vote, the majority REVERSES a district court decision that had struck down a South Carolina congressional district as a racial gerrymander. Alito writes; all three liberals dissent. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf
In a solo concurrence, Clarence Thomas declares his belief that racial gerrymandering claims should be deemed non-justiciable political questions, permanently prohibiting federal courts from scrutinizing allegedly racist redistricting. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf
Justice Thomas: "The Constitution provides courts no power to draw districts, let alone any standards by which they can attempt to do so. ... It is well past time for the Court to return these political issues where they belongthe political branches." https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf
"So this 'odious' practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue." https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf
Link to tweet
no_hypocrisy
(48,422 posts)legal. Until more liberal jurists are on the Bench.
I guess thats one way to get a republican majority in The House.
FBaggins
(27,424 posts)One of the concurrences came close to that and the dissent accuses the majority of it
But the ruling is that racial gerrymandering is illegal, but that there was insufficient evidence of it in this case.
IOW - in line with a few recent decisions - disparate impact is not enough to prove discriminatory intent.
uponit7771
(91,317 posts)FBaggins
(27,424 posts)Racial gerrymandering could still be out - but they won't infer that a given gerrymander is racial rather than political just because racial and political demographics overlap.
My "discriminatory intent" comment was really aligning this ruling with some of their employment rulings in recent years. Not that long ago, employers could run into trouble if a given HR policy (for instance) ended up impacting a racial minority differently than other groups - even if there was no evidence that the company intended that to happen. That's no longer the case under this court and this ruling is similar.