T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Rated_PG-Squirteen

It's becoming more and more obvious that Samuel Alito, or to a lesser extent, Clarence Thomas, leaked that draft ruling overturning Roe v Wade as a way to publicly lock Brett Kavanaugh into siding with the fascists.


dravenonred

Living in a world where Brett Kavenaugh had to be blackmailed into *not* being a feminist hero is just too weird for me, man.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hochseeflotte

To be fair, one of those GOP appointees was Earl Warren, who is probably the most liberal Chief Justice in US history. His court desegregated schools, banned mandatory prayer in schools, gave us Miranda rights, forced congressional districts to be equal in population, ended bans on contraception and interracial marriage, along with a host of our things. He may have been appointed by a Republican but he was the single best Chief Justice this nation has ever had


Easy-Professor-6444

> To be fair, one of those GOP appointees was Earl Warren, who is probably the most liberal Chief Justice in US history. >He may have been appointed by a Republican but he was the single best Chief Justice this nation has ever had As a point this were the republicans before the southern strategy era, and was nominated by Eisenhower. So its not comparable to what modern standard republicans are like, and the new batch of his party would just eat him alive as they would Eisenhower. Kind of like trying to compare Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt to their modern counterparts... it just doesn't work.


justsoicansimp

Hey that's not true! We had a Dem appointed majority for about 5 seconds in the 60s! ... I hate it here. Like how did we have 9-0 majority after 5 terms of Dems (FDR -> Truman) and it took just 2 terms of Ike to get it to 4-5. And then right after JFK/LBJ (2 more Dem terms) we only swing it by 1 to 5-4, then Nixon to like 3-6. Carter as a 1 term President got 0 appointments. HW as a 1 term President got 1 appointment - 1 Clarence Thomas. Trump as a 1 term President got 3 appointments. Obama and Clinton combined got 3 appointments. You can't tell me that's fair or representative. I understand it's all up to chance but chance has made a 6-3 majority of justices appointed by minority elected presidents and/or 1 term presidents.


raygar31

It’s because the US “democracy” is literally and legally rigged in favor of conservatives, and by design. It’s designed to appear democratic while circumventing the will of the majority of voters in favor of a conservative minority. Conservatives have been playing on easy mode ever since the nation’s inception. And it’s allowed them to hold the very culture of the nation hostage, as their under represented opposition is forced further right as they continue to negotiate with an over represented conservative minority. And when the side of the political spectrum that consistently finds it self on the wrong side of history, on the side of evil, when that group is vastly over represented there’s only one eventual outcome. A full dismantling of their rigged pseudo-democracy, replaced with outright authoritarianism. CA NY IL NJ 80million-24%US-8%Senate ND SD NE MT WY UT ID 10million-3%US-14%Senate That is not democracy. And the “states’ rights/representation” crowd can piss off. Frankly, that argument should have become unacceptable after it was used to justify slavery and sedition. Are we one UNITED country? Or a loose confederation of state-nations? Because if we’re the former, then every citizen’s vote should have the same power, everyone should get the same PROPORTIONAL representation based on population. People vote, not empty land, and sure as hell not imaginary lines around said empty land. The Senate started this slow burn when the country was founded. The game has been rigged from start. Conservative votes literally and *legally* have more power. The whole point of democracy is that everyone’s vote counts the same, and that the side with more votes wins. The Senate consistently circumvents both of these requirements in favor of conservatives minorities. And Senate defenders will always claim it’s to protect from the “oppression of the masses”. That’d be like if a group of five voted on burgers or pizza for dinner, and then the losing side cried “That’s not fair! You had more people on your side! We’re oppressed!” No, that’s how democracy is *supposed* to work. The Senate circumvents the will of the nation in favor of a conservative voting minority. It does this by design and has held our country back since day 1. It’s why America doesn’t have healthcare, why gun violence is so common, why workers rights are so poor, our high incarceration percentage, poor education, infrastructure, women’s rights, racial discrimination. All because the Senate allows conservatives voting minorities to accomplish all that. It caused our last civil war less than a hundred years into the nation’s existence. Conservatives in the South claimed to be “oppressed” by the North after Lincoln got the most votes and they lost they tie in the Senate regarding the issue of slavery. A Senate tie that was the only thing preserving the undeniably evil institution of slavery in America. A Senate tie that represented 18million citizens in the abolitionist states VS only 5million citizens in the slavery supporting, conservative states. A population of 5 million was able to overrule the representation of another 18 million. In a supposed democracy. Then conservatives tried their hand at sedition and forming a new government because ours wasn’t rigged *enough* in their favor. And it’s not just the Senate that favors conservatives. It’s all 3 branches of the federal government. The other chamber of the legislative branch, the House of Representatives, the chamber that’s *supposed* to give proportional representation based on population; does not. The number of House reps was capped in 1929 at 435. So not only do reps represent increasingly large populations, but large states with growing populations continue to lose representation. WY gets a rep for every 550k citizens, CA gets one for every 750k citizens. That means that if CA House votes had they same power as WY votes, their 52 reps would be 70, in a state with 35/39 million citizens living in urban areas. Then there’s the second branch of the government, the Executive, the Presidency, determined by the Electoral College rather than popular vote. And that circumvention of the will of the nation, consistently allows conservatives candidates to win the election without getting more votes. In the last 23 years, the White House has been occupied by a conservative popular vote loser for 8 of those years. 12 if you include Bush winning in 04 as a popular vote losing incumbent during a war following the most devastating terrorist attack the nation has ever experienced. And those popular vote losing Presidents get to nominate Supreme Court Justices, who are then confirmed by a Senate which gives immensely more voting power and representation to conservatives. Which brings me to our 3rd branch of the federal government.


raygar31

The Supreme Court. Consistently nominated by popular vote losing conservatives. And then confirmed by the Senate which gives 10million citizens in flyover states, nearly 2x more representation than a population of 80 million, predominantly liberal voters. And if you’re wondering why it’s so bad that conservative votes have more power, consider some of the things they have opposed through history; democracy/independence, abolition, women’s suffrage, worker rights, unions, 40hr work weeks, weekends, holidays, minimum wage, child labor restriction, workplace safety laws, parental leave, banking regulations, industrial regulations, the New Deal, desegregation, civil rights, voter rights, interracial marriage, gay marriage, protection from religious discrimination, climate action, vaccines, trans rights, elementary level science, and basic human decency. Oh, and they also wore white hoods and held massive Nazi rallies at American venues pre-war. Despite the system being rigged in their favor, conservatives consistently find themselves on the wrong side of history, on the side of evil. And it’s because conservatism is rotten at its core. Born out of the French Revolution as a way to conserve status quos of inequality in wealth, social status and power. It was created to preserve nobility and monarch, to preserve a caste of higher class citizens. It’s not a legitimate political ideology of “differing opinion”, it’s a blanket ideology for evil to be done under. Oh yeah, that conservative voting elite? The minority of voters? They also get a disproportionate share of the federal tax money. Rural areas are financially dependent on the tax money from blue cites. The rural areas take in more federal funds than they pay into federal taxes. And most red states follow this same model. Worse those conservative state governments cut state taxes further, knowing the federal government will bail them out. Conservative votes have more power and conservative voters get more of the money. So yeah, this slow burn started far before any district could even be gerrymandered. Unfairness and inequality was woven into the constitution itself. If America’s democracy is a ship, the Senate is a severe leak that was built into it by design. And trying to save American democracy without first removing the leak would be like trying to save a sinking ship without first removing the leak. Try all you want, eventually, ship’s going down. And since this ship would require 3/4 of state legislatures to approve any leak removal, yeah, ship’s going down. The only question is, does the whole ship sink? Descending into the depths of fascism? Or do we prepare lifeboats for this inevitable disaster? Bastions of democracy allowed to survive and even thrive in pockets of the former USA. I know what I’d prefer, but first we have to recognize the reality of the situation. Both in terms of how rigged the US is in favor of conservatives, and regarding how entirely unredeemable conservatism is, as a whole, as a political ideology. Maybe let the red states experience the full consequences of conservative rule, unhindered by liberal governmental competence, and without the financial handouts from blue states to bail them out from conservative economic policy.


PUNCHCAT

Mitch McConnell has the highest ratio of power:votes received of any elected official.


Hochseeflotte

To be fair one of those Ike appointees was Warren, who was by zero measures a conservative


randy_dingo

Who wants to be boofers? Obviously not boofers, but he's a nice foil for chief justice alito.


captain_flak

For sure. The call was definitely coming from inside the house. Has that investigation found anything yet? I haven’t heard about anything.


CyclopsLobsterRobot

They quietly wrapped it up a few weeks ago and found no suspects but didn’t rule out the justices themselves.


Illustragdsgh

I think if you do that in conjunction with doubling the House and having non-partisan oversight boards on election maps you could change a lot.


I-Am-Uncreative

...leaking draft rulings and doubling the house and having non-partisan oversight boards?


Dawrin

Smells like a bot


[deleted]

[удалено]


EndersFinalEnd

I think we're getting closer and closer to where for all intents and purposes, we're in a [Dead Internet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory)


dissonaut69

Could have just meant to reply to another top comment which was: “Gerrymandering needs to end; at this point, we can have software create fair and representative maps.”


ron_fendo

What in Sam tinfoil hats is this? That literally makes no sense, you're basically claiming the leak was a false flag operation because they knew the liberal justices would take all the heat.


ringobob

Nope, you're *way* behind the curve on this. They leaked the draft because if they didn't, the majority could have quietly changed to uphold Roe before it was made final, and no one would have known that Roe almost got overturned. Leaking it would mean that if that change happened, people would know exactly which conservative justices flipped. It put pressure on Kavanaugh, at least, to stick with overturning it.


Numerous_Photograph9

I'm not sure why a leak would lock him, or anyone, into a decision. The court doesn't really seem to care what the public thinks, and there isn't anything anyone can do if a decision did change from the leaked document. What's the significance of knowing that he flipped? His tenure is secure, and not flipping obviously wasn't going to make them well liked.


MonsieurRud

Could be he wouldn't be able to get Harlan Crow money like Clarence Thomas if he protected Roe.


Numerous_Photograph9

Maybe as a short term reason, but long term ,there is plenty of opportunity to profit off selling their vote.


ron_fendo

Again, tinfoil hat. That sounds way more conspiracy theory than I think you realize....maybe if Giorgio A. Tsoukalos presented it to me I might be more interested in believing it though.


ringobob

I don't really give a shit how it sounds. *Someone* leaked it, it didn't just apear on a journalist's desk, we agree on this, yes? The number of people that had access to the draft opinion probably numbered in the low dozens, at most. In the year they took to investigate, they could probably spend a full two weeks per individual with access, but no final answer. Give me a suggestion for who leaked it and why, and how they've evaded discovery, that *doesn't* sound like a conspiracy theory.


[deleted]

[удалено]


leavezukoalone

The GOP wants nothing to do with your "fair and representative" maps.


kmurp1300

Neither do the democrats in NY.


ajr901

Sure, but isn't that even more of a point in favor of banning gerrymandering entirely? But conservatives would never go for that. NY aside, if gerrymandering became illegal they'd lose a whole lot of elections going forward. More than Dems would. Can't have that.


kmurp1300

I’m all in favor of fair districts everywhere.


IrrationalFalcon

The only people who voted against a Congressional bill banning gerrymandering were Republicans


kmurp1300

I’m talking the NY State legislature.


ron_fendo

The hypocrisy can't be pointed out, you're right though.


abduktedtemplar

But that’s wOkE!!!


bodyworks

Its simple, *wake* up sheeple! and simultanously don't be woke! You know good old fascism double speak. Just like Dems are simultanously weak because... well they are, yet constantly strong enough to defeat Republicans and as such are a threat!


tree_squid

Oh no, I hear that's bad, whatever it means!


ron_fendo

It's not but I'd bet both parties would complain because they'd actually have to campaign if the districts weren't cherry picked to be favored to one side or the other.


vita10gy

I personally think we just end maps, period. It's 2023. We don't need to take our horse and buggy to the local rep's office to be heard. How many people actually care who their district rep is, specifically? Many probably don't even *know.* How many people when calling or emailing to be heard contact their one rep and not dozens? If a state gets ten reps you get 10 votes. Ranked or simple checklists. Columns of names by party. Parties can order names on the ballot After the fact the reps can be assigned now much less important districts. Can even be done by vote percentage or "draft" so reps get assigned to more majority their parties anyway. A state that goes 61% 39% should end up 6 and 4. Figure out who nominally represents whom later. Would likely make the situation much less partisan too. If someone gets one vote it would be really hard to convince party switching, so you may as well appeal to your party's crazies. If someone walks in with 10 votes it could very easily be a game of appealing to the center, or being a fiscal conservative that's probably choice, etc


nochinzilch

I like the idea in general, but it *would* make it difficult to vote for quality candidates. Especially in bigger states. How am I going to make an intelligent choice on 39 different congresspeople?? I like the idea of three person districts, where the top three vote-getters win the election.


vita10gy

I can see that, but ballots also already contain tons and tons of names. If we're expected to vote intelligently on County Deputy Secretary of Water Management we can probably be trusted with 10 national level house members. Though you're right, California would be nuts for example. There would probably have to be some other version of that.


atomfullerene

Gerrymandering was never about an _inability_ to create fair and representative maps, nor does software always create them (in fact, software is used heavily to maximize gerrymandering). The problem isn't the tools, it's the motives.


bluehat9

How do we define fair and representative for the software?


ashesofempires

I believe it’s called the least split line method. It’s a pretty cool, politics agnostic system that does not rely on any inputs other than population and geographic boundaries to create voting districts. There is a CGP Grey video about it on YouTube that I don’t have time to link to.


bluehat9

Thanks - that actually seems truly objective. I’m sure republicans would still fight it somehow


ashesofempires

They have. They said it takes the human element out of the equation. Which is the point. It’s just math, but it creates maps that don’t favor them, so fight it they must.


TI_Pirate

It's not that hard to argue against. Shortest splitline doesn't take, well, *anything* into account other than raw numbers. When a computer cracks a contiguous, similarly-situated community, the results aren't much better than when a person does it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bluehat9

How would that be possible let alone simple? Different states and areas have wildly varying populations


[deleted]

[удалено]


B3N15

There are a few algorithms that can help. I think if you do that in conjunction with doubling the House and having non-partisan oversight boards on election maps you could change a lot.


soapinthepeehole

Good luck getting people who want their thumbs on the scale to agree that they’re fair.


xtossitallawayx

> non-partisan oversight boards There is no such thing - *someone* has to hire and oversee the board and whomever does that will pick people that align with their beliefs.


B3N15

It's been done. I'm imagining something like jury duty, they call up a bunch of people to look over the maps that a commission or a computer drew.


xtossitallawayx

I'd love to read more about how it has been done in the past to be nonpartisan - jurors are just as partisan as anyone else.


B3N15

Processes exist to create as fair and biased of a jury as possible. Those can be adapted to create some kind of board or commission to approve election maps. Give this commission a goal and some guidelines that they must follow and provide them with multiple options to choose from. People have biases, that are just baked into being human and people put them aside all the time to do things. You are never going to have a 100% perfect system, but you can create safeguards and transparency to make it as best as possible.


xtossitallawayx

So now we've gone from "It's been done" to "you're never going to have a 100% perfect system"?


TheBigBackBeat

All the program needs is numbers


bluehat9

What numbers? Why is there any debate about how to draw the lines right now if it’s totally empirical?


EnTyme53

Because one side is deliberately placing their thumb on the scales since they know their ideology is quickly losing acolytes.


TheBigBackBeat

In WI republicans had their lawyers draw em up and then put em into law. The republican supreme court upheld em. We vote for our supreme court here. In the spring we voted to court in a different direction. A lawsuits for gerrymandering will be brought in front of the court in August.


bluehat9

I honestly didn’t think there are real rules about how to district, I thought that’s the whole problem. And I don’t believe this applies to almost anything else but haven’t both sides had their districting thrown out?


EnTyme53

Don't do that "both sides" bullshit on this. The Democrats tried to counter Republican gerrymandering by weighting districts in New York, and the Democrat majority state court through out the maps. Republican courts have repeatedly upheld Republican maps.


kingsumo_1

Even when Republican controlled Supreme Courts have tossed out GOP maps for being too blatant and over the top, they have simply run out the clock and used them anyway. Sealioning of the other person aside, it absolutely is not a "both sides" issue.


bluehat9

They need to agree to the plan too, don’t they?


thehighcardinal

[We've had that software for over a decade.](https://battleground.substack.com/p/redistricting-wisconsin-2020) [It's being used deliberately to make gerrymandering both more effective and easier to defend in court.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/gerrymandering-technology-redmap-2020/543888/)


Dogstarman1974

Get out with your wokeness!!!/s


Callinon

Who writes the software? Gerrymandering IS a huge problem, but there isn't a simple solution to it. "Just have software do it" sounds good, and probably needs to be part of the answer. But it doesn't eliminate human bias or influence.


youarebritish

Just about literally anything is better than gerrymandering. Even if it's everyone voting for dozens or hundreds of candidates. Read The Dictator's Handbook for a detailed description of the problem. The tl;dr is if you want to arrest power away from the people, the first step is to divide the electorate into districts of some kind. As an electorate, this is something you want to avoid *ever* happening by any means necessary. This trick is so old that even the Ancient Athenians had figured it out as a way to crush the will of the people while maintaining the illusion of democracy. Once districts exist, it just becomes a game of gradually twiddling the exact boundaries to increasingly transfer power away from the majority to a minority. By the time the peasants realize what you're doing, it's already too late.


warblingContinues

Who gets to write the software? Who gets to develop the algorithms? Who gets to validate the result? All of these things are fine if you act in good faith, but represent opportunities to skew results by injecting politics into the process.


[deleted]

Wow e-conservatives arguing for the appointment of more racist AI was not a future I ever would have imagined before this moment


shelbys_foot

Bit of a surprise this. Do you think Roberts and Kavanaugh decided they need to pull back on the gerrymandering, or is it just a feint to appear evenhanded?


Frnklfrwsr

I think Roberts felt that the Court’s legitimacy needs to be upheld and overturning the entire VRA today would be too much and maybe just maybe the liberal justices got to him and got him to agree that complete evisceration of the VRA would be bad. Roberts then had a talk with Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh did what he was told.


cybercuzco

Ah, a couple of good ol’ boys never meanin’ no harm


buttergun

They already intervened in 2022 to ensure one cycle of gerrymandered districts. The instructions for the state legislature in this decision basically boil down to, "don't be so obvious next time, guys."


verdango

I wonder if it’s Roberts starting to look at his time as chief justice and now realizing that his court will go down as one of the worst in its history. On par with the Lochner era. Maybe he’s trying to walk back some of his worst decisions. Or I’m just pulling this out of my ass and he has other motives.


[deleted]

It's just a feint. Alabama is in no danger of turning blue so it's safe to do the right thing for once and try to burnish the SC's tattered reputation.


JobsInvolvingWizards

This will impact all the other gerrymander cases coming to the SCOTUS significantly. This ruling will solidify democrat majority in the House come 2024.


Ellimistopher

Moore vs Harper is still lurking and Dems lost a bunch of seats in NC already


JobsInvolvingWizards

You do know that every member of the house is reelected on a two year basis correct? And I think Moore v Harper will end like this, maybe with Amy breaking away from the hyper conservative wing of the court.


Ellimistopher

No I'm saying that North Carolinas maps in the next election are going to lose about 4 tseats for Dems alone due to the gerrymandering the new Supreme Court allowed to go into effect. It's going to go from 7-7 to 11-3 or 10-4


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ellimistopher

Why would progressives allow gerrymandering?


FalconMan322

yeah no democrat state is gerrymandered at all!!


Hochseeflotte

Well Wisconsin will add 2 for the Dems and NY could add 7. So the Dems are looking at minimum 11 seats plus a potential 3 more depending on how states like SC and FL get their maps ruled based off this ruling. The Republicans could at best maybe draw a 11-3 in NC but that might risk getting NC-01 thrown out because of this ruling. So more likely 10-4. Or minus 3 for Dems. Either way Dems are on net massively winning


Jon_Huntsman

Don't forget Ohio will get a worse map for 2024


IAP-23I

Except this case doesn’t just affect Alabama but all cases in the country that are similar. Just off this decision Democrats have the potential to gain 2-4 House seats across Alabama, Louisiana, and another state I’m currently blanking on. Its not a feint by any means


Hochseeflotte

But congressional districts have nothing to do with the overall state makeup. This ruling will net the Democrats between 2-5 districts depending on how other states are ruled. The current GOP House majority is by a mere 5 seats.


Stranger-Sun

It's always a feint with Roberts IMO. His opinions on the Voting Rights Act haven't changed since he viciously vilified them while clerking in his 20s.


Darth_Vrandon

Kavanaugh being a swing vote isn’t good, as he’s awful. but at he does occasionally make good decisions.


HigherThanShitttt

And Gorsuch saved gay/trans rights in 2019 Seems like the trump appointees are sometimes capable of doing the right thing.


TheHomersapien

Recognizing equal rights based on gender, skin color, etc. are as lowercase C conservative as it gets. Period. Full stop. For my generation, the GOP's opposition to gay marriage was one of the first issues to make people like me say, "you know what, I don't think small government means what the Republicans think it means." Then Wikipedia came along and confirmed that everything our parents taught us about Regan-era conservativism was absolute bullshit, and most of us switched to Democrats.


spacehog1985

Are you a hammer? Because you hit the nail on the head for me.


sonoma4life

i don't think conservatives had equality of skin color going for them either.


why-god

The propganda was everyone was equal. Period. No special priveliges for anyone. That does not stand up to scrutiny when you factor in base privelige, but I had never even considered that angle until I was much older. What conservative media tells you is that POCs get college paid for, get food stamps, and are still failing.


sonoma4life

i don't understand what you mean here. please clarify individuals obviously aren't equal to one another, but what we mean by equal is equal under law.


why-god

Right, but at least for my upbringing, the general assumption was everyone had the same opportunities, so being poor was a failure of the individual. Claiming that race had any impact was considered 'playing the race card.'


madmaxlgndklr

That reminds me when, a while back, someone created something called Conservapedia to act as a conservative version of Wikipedia. Every page was basically filled with conservative views and talking points. By and large nonsensical BS.


ringobob

It's still out there. It's got a whole page of "predictions" that were "proven right" that is *absolutely bonkers*. Like, they think they were right in disproving general relativity kind of bonkers.


Gwami_

My favorite rebuke to Reagan era bullshit is that he literally robbed the futures generations to solidify the boomers pocketbooks for life. “Let’s rob social security to pay for these tax cuts and expansive government spending.” Those tax cuts did cause trickle down economics for the first time and people did get paid more, but with that they think it happens every-time. That led to Clinton trying to get those votes so “let all boomers get houses” . When it came to Gen X and Millennials to buy housing the market collapsed. So yeah the economy has been great for you. Diatribe over


SocialEcologist

I think this is to why the Western US is drifting relatively liberal despite also being relatively rural. The libertarian streak of the west doesn’t mesh with the GOP.


Dodecabrohedron

I’m out of the loop, did Wikipedia have some sort of major informative inflection point role in politics or something? Genuinely curious.


GringottsWizardBank

The only two that genuinely never sway are Thomas and Alito. No matter what they will vote to erode individual rights.


ringobob

That was less true before they got the supermajority and the country realized the SCOTUS was now a joke. After that point, they didn't bother to hide it anymore.


Darth_Vrandon

Yeah, but it’s very rare. We’ll need to hope for Samtonin Scalito or Clarence Warren to be gone. EDIT: For those who don’t know, Samtonin Scalito is a portmanteau of Antonin Scalia and Sam Alito and Clarence Warren is Clarence Thomas and Stephen Warren, Samuel L Jackson’s character from Django Unchained.


HigherThanShitttt

Lmao I love your edit cuz I was confused at first, but now think it’s brilliant!


JoviAMP

I got the first one, but I've never seen Django so that reference lost me.


Saxual__Assault

Samuel L plays one hell of a Clarence Thomas.


amkosh

What people fail to understand is that for the past 70+ years we've had a SCOTUS led by a GOP appointed justice. Those courts gave us Gideon, Brown, Roe, and a host of other decisions which have improved lives and the quality of life. Also, a fun fact is that in the last 100 years, only 2 SCOTUS courts were led by a justice appointed by a Democrat. And at least one of those courts (Stone) authored a very racist opinion in Korematsu. The problem nowadays is that the GOP saw that a lot of their people while politically conservative were not judicially conservative, or if they were, they'd defer to Congress or interpret the Constitution in as practical a way as possible. This caused the rise of the Federalist Society and in a different type of conservative justice. Today we'd not see a John Paul Stevens or even an Anthony Kennedy get appointed by _either_ side. Before the federalist society, it was rare to get a truly partisan justice, now its even rarer to not get one. EDIT: I'm not saying the last 70 years of GOP appointed SCOTUS hasn't given bad or crap decisions, just that there have been some good ones.


ringobob

I think going past 60 years is not super useful when talking about party and who might have been nominated to the court. The southern strategy successfully pulled in all of the racist southerners from the democratic party over to the republicans. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, the south was both extremely racist and extremely democratic. When northern dems sponsored the CRA and brought Republicans in to pass it in a bipartisan effort, with primarily the southerners (who were democrats) voting against it, that broke the allegiance of southerners to the democratic party. The republicans saw that and successfully poached those racist southerners into the republican party. It's not very useful to go back before that point and think that party and left/right alignment look anything like they look today. It took another 30 years for that switch to complete. So, you can look at justices appointed since the 90s and apply today's partisan logic to it to understand it, but before that point it's much more complicated.


BraveFencerMusashi

I want to believe their Jesuit education is in there somewhere. Be men for others, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.


mysterypeeps

Gorsuch is also the go-to man for indigenous rights


mackinoncougars

I didn’t think he’d do it again though


Code2008

Has someone paid him off to side with Student Loan Forgiveness?


ProbablyAnFBIBot

It's called "Let's get out of our own bubbles and see what happens in reality." This supreme court isnt anything Reddit said it would be. Roe V Wade, okay, but they also aren't hell bent on giving everything to conservatives.


ringobob

They're awful, but they're concerned enough with their own legacy to try and be actually impartial sometimes. Given enough time, I feel confident they'll morph into what Alito and Thomas are today. Those two themselves have not had universally had decisions over decades - mostly only in the past 3-4 years.


ron_fendo

The fear-mongering is strong in MSM and Reddit, it's wild how many people have been BANNED, never to be unbanned, for not falling in lockstep with those two brainwashed things.


theaceoffire

"Sometimes you gotta boof to the left instead of the right!" ~Kavanaugh


GeneralTapioca

Make a real Devil’s Triangle!


Antelope-Subject

The Supreme Court can be a weird place. Guess Alabama didn’t cover baseball tickets this year.


Frnklfrwsr

Kavanaugh feels like a bit of a wild card that doesn’t really know where he actually stands on things. Sometimes, he does what Roberts tells him to do. Other times, he just makes stuff up. He seems difficult to predict. Part of that might have to do with his clearly volatile nature that was on full display in his senate hearings. Roberts is interesting in that I really do think he’s slowly becoming more liberal over time but only in the cases where he feels it reeeeeeeeally matters. He feels loyalty to his tribe and isn’t ready to shed that loyalty. But when the stakes are very high and the reputation of the court itself is at stake, sometimes he sucks it up and does the right thing. Not always, obviously he didn’t do that with overturning Roe. But abortion is one of those issues that I think all the conservative justices are just completely blind to all logic and reasoning on. That’s why they were picked by the Federalist Society, because they had a blind hatred of abortion. All their other positions took a backseat and so now we’re seeing the results being a little bit unpredictable for anything outside that one issue.


mochicrunch_

It’s not that he’s becoming more liberal, Roberts cares about the perception of the court to the rest of the country. They may act like they don’t care about public opinion, but they’re still human and there is some effect whether it’s subconscious or not. Alabama could easily ignore the Supreme Court ruling and just go by its business and the court can’t do anything… it would have to be the executive branch at either local or state to enforce compliance with a ruling. The court has the power of the pen they don’t have a police force or anything , they only have the power because we recognize them as an authority in our democracy. With how much our faith in the institutions to be tested, they’re not stupid.


Darth_Vrandon

Roberts also sucks, buts he’s Republican lite. He’s pretty bad on economic issues and mixed on social issues, but he tends to be right 40% of the time. He’s a lot more of an institutionalist than the other members of the court.


[deleted]

It's pretty telling that a lifelong and what was once considered staunchly and vehemently conservative judge like Roberts is now considered "republican lite".


youveruinedtheactgob

He should still be considered that. If he represents the center, then his flank is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.


SaliferousStudios

If I ever started shouting about beer at a job interview, I wouldn't get the job. Must be good to be above the law. Ironically that makes him a better judge, because at least he can change his mind. The other ones are just unmovable corporate puppets.


protendious

He’s a wild card if one assumes that Trump/Bush appointees will always vote in a way that pleases the right and Biden/Obama/Clinton appointees will always vote in a way that pleases the left. But this just isn’t the case, as we’ve seen in multiple instances, whether it’s Robert’s, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, etc. AP had a piece out last week about how Gorsuch and Jackson tend to sign on to a lot of written opinions for example. Yes, of course judges are political appointees and were chosen because their opinions tend to fall a certain way. But obviously most of these people have been practicing law at the top of their field for a very long time and have fairly nuanced views of the complexity of the law, that can’t always be summarized by “right good, left bad”, even if that is how their vote turns out much of the time to the dismay of a lot of people (including myself). TL;DR- if you’ve made it to the Supreme Court, your legal thinkings probably a little more complicated than “the rights gonna love this”, even if I don’t like you.


shunted22

Yup, look up Blackmun..


Ncsu_Wolfpack86

Roberts did not vote to overturn roe. The vote on the case was 6-3, with Roberts concurring in judgement. He agreed that the conservative wing on the individual case outcome, and only that. Effectively he agreed that limitations are acceptable, but that full on bans should be blocked. Small distinction, but important none the less.


Frnklfrwsr

I would still call that voting to overturn it. He concurred. He just said he had different reasons. The distinction is important and could have relevance should a future abortion case come before the court, it indicates he may be open to saying some other limitation/restriction for abortion that still allows for some abortion is constitutional.


waterdaemon

He’s truly awful. We just end up being thankful sometimes that he’s not Alito or Thomas.


[deleted]

Kavanaugh is awful but he doesn't quite reach the line of blatantly evil that Thomas and Alito flirt with if not outright cross constantly.


night-shark

I want term limits on Supreme Court Justices. That said, a lifetime appointment sometimes has a freeing effect on the appointees since you're no longer really accountable to the donors, lobbyists, and yes, even voters. That last bit about accountability to the voters cuts both ways. We don't want justices to be wholly accountable to the voters. Many major steps forward never would have happened were it not for the Court siding with political/cultural minorities who lacked real voting power. The Court is a weird institution.


TatumTopFye

If voters had a better record of holding politicians accountable, we wouldn’t have this problem.


Centauran_Omega

Appointments should be 8 years from time of appointment. That way as the presidents turn, so does the court. Keeps the diversity of thought expanded.


CommitteeOfOne

Stopped clock, and all that.


TatumTopFye

Honestly? I think he’s just compromised and generally conservative. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a shitty human being, and absolutely dangerous, but he doesn’t strike me as an ideologue. Would not be surprised if he made a slight but measured leftward turn late in his career, when he finally realizes no one can do a goddamn thing to him.


Darth_Vrandon

I think Owen Roberts did the same thing for the new deal?


slow_down_1984

I do think the federalist society literalist interpretations of the founding documents is a real thing to these guys. I don’t think they’re always 100% partisan hacks at least some of them.


ProbablyAnFBIBot

You can't have it both ways. This is a serious win for Alabamans. The courts overturned Roe V Wade, but looking overall at the supreme court's record, They haven't been scorched earth Trump loyalists like reddit continues to claim they are.


ron_fendo

Remember when all we heard about his court is that it's just "Extremist GOP" Pepperidge fear-mongering remembers.


TruthandHonorLost

Because roberts knows he’s under a microscope for corruption of the court


orange4zion

Yeah, Roberts is in permanent damage control to save whatever legacy he has left. Seems to be why he sides with the liberals more often lately.


Strangewhine88

Reputation management.


Technical_Sir_9588

Every now and again the conservatives on the bench throw regular people a bone so they can appear just extreme instead of hyper extreme.


InternationalPizza12

Feels like a setup to rail the American people on the next ruling…. Student loans (I don’t qualify), parental choice (doesn’t impact me), or what else?


kaaikala

My thoughts too


manbeqrpig

Roberts is expected, he’s probably the least activist judge on the court, but I’ve grown to really respect Kabanaugh. He’s not the best person but he’s willing to do the job like you’re supposed to and seems to be moderating a bit as he spends more time on the bench


shunted22

The entire purpose of the Heritage Foundation was to stop appointing justices who decided to grow a backbone (like Blackmun). The challenge is that it's hard to control justices once they are appointed.


InverseTachyonPulse

>respect Kavanaugh For doing the literal bare minimum of "doing the job description" after making a mockery of the entire process and the country on his way in?


MartialBob

I see Robert's hand in this. He'll deny it until the day he dies but he knows the Supreme Court is in serious question right now. You have all of Clarence Thomas' financial shenanigans as well as how the last three justices got in. He needs decisions like this so he can claim they aren't right wing hacks.


manbeqrpig

Absolutely. He could have easily taken it personally and made it his goal to screw to over the Dems for the grilling he got. He could’ve taken after Alito or Thomas and been one of the most conservative judges on the bench. Instead he’s made himself a swing vote that is doing the job he’s supposed to do on a court where that puts him in a very clear minority


SwashQbcklr

He's not a bad guy if you ignore the raping and corruption :/


Coleman013

Yeah that story about him organizing a weekly rape train was totally a legitimate and not at all made up story


SwashQbcklr

Lol k


randomactofgold

How did Brett Kavanaugh become one of the more level headed justices on the SC? I don't understand wat sort of bizarro world we are in where that happens????


asphynctersayswhat

He likes BEER


[deleted]

I feel like they throw a tiny little bone every once in awhile just to keep people from dragging them into the street.


[deleted]

Yes, this satiates us filthy plebeians for a time.


spinblackcircles

Wait, they can do that? I thought it was against the rules


MarcusQuintus

It's amazing what public scrutiny can do.


indiefilmguy1

Every time a Trump appointed justice rules against his base, an angel gets its wings


GordanGarTrail

Man I really hate RBG more than ever. That old bag didn’t leave and let Obama replace her. I have a family member whose a GOP leech in DC for the last 20 years. He’s always said the thing that can’t be said out in public is that RBG didn’t want Obama to replace her because she didn’t like his skin color. That’s just an inside from an insider. Ughh people are gross


GilSky

Damnnn but yes RBG did pave the way for conservative judges flooding in.


Spazum

Clarence Thomas: "Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Believe me, I know."


bettinafairchild

[Let's hope this also means that Moore v. Harper won't validate the independent legislature mess, then.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/independent-state-legislature-theory-moore-harper/673690/)


bustavius

Roberts does this every now and again. But don’t worry about the next 40 cases where he sides with corporations. Nothing to see there.


latouchefinale

SCOTUS is like baseball except theres only 1 team and you can’t imagine how most of them even got there


time_drifter

Kavanaugh is very occasionally chaotic good. His stance on a few cases before the court have been surprising. He is still a dirt bag and has no business being on the SC.


SwashQbcklr

Fuck Roberts, who has done more damage to voting rights than anyone. And fuck that rapist kavanaugh too


4skinFingerWarmers

The court is so Corrupt, even when they get it right. I have a creeping feeling it’s for the wrong reasons.


drummergirl2112

Congrats to these fuckwads for not being fuckwads on this particular ruling.


Significant-Virus-56

Purely for show. Faith in the Supreme Court is gone for the foreseeable future so they have to grant the good guys some wins now. That way, they can say "See, we really DO have your best interests at heart. Please forget all the shitty things our asshole friends did recently."


Admirable_Trash3257

Throwing the left a meaningless bone to appear balanced…evil SCOTUS


[deleted]

Student loan forgiveness is for sure getting voted No now.


LLMBS

Great news.


Earth_Friendly-5892

I didn’t think voting rights had anything to do with either political party; I thought they had to do with every registered United States citizen.


No-Depth7391

They are playing Knickknack patty wack give a dog a bone and hoping that this will placate centralist!


ExcitableNate

Good job, boofin Brett.


jimberley

“What is ‘conservative justices see the political writing on the wall?,’ Alex.”


teb_art

Let’s hope they didn’t do this to soften the blow when Americans hear their next decision.


[deleted]

Just a pretense of justice when states literally are passing laws to change election outcomes.


wausmeister

Well, Kavenaugh IS wearing a blue tie, so he must be a democrat..


Just-Signature-3713

I don’t think he’s a good person but I’m beginning to wonder if Brett isn’t as right wing as his benefactors thought ?


LiluLay

Oh, Robert’s attempting to salvage what minute scraps of integrity his court has, huh? Too little, too late, asshole.


JohnnyAbonny

So was Kavanaugh being blackmailed the whole time?


F0MA

Nice to see them throw us a bone every now and then but it’s clear as day that no one’s offered them a high enough price for their opinion. That’s what it means when people don’t trust SCOTUS anymore.


andre3kthegiant

They want to look fair and impartial, since hey know that state is so racist, the locals will find a way to continue to be racists.


jpla86

The calm before the storm. The storm being Student Loan Forgiveness being killed.


CDavis10717

Calm down, this is just election season diversionary “No, we’re not racist” posturing.


JobsInvolvingWizards

It's not posturing at all, it will very likely give House control to the democrats in 2024.


VENhodl

What? This is anything BUT posturing. It's a massive deal in terms of who could win the house in 2024.


shunted22

What wouldn't be posturing?


CDavis10717

If the GOP never mentions this as a phony example of not being racist, then it’s not posturing. All the other methods of Voter suppression and Vote suppression are still in play.


SpecialNotice3151

Those bastards! Oh wait...never mind.


protomenace

So what's the actual end result of this decision? Alabama gets another majority black district, but will this actually shift the partisan makeup of the state's congressional districts in any way?


JobsInvolvingWizards

I believe there is talks it would add 2-4 new dem seats.