Still in shock that this was the decision from the Supreme Court. We (the masses) are always trying to put the justices in these black and white boxes, but now Roberts and previously Barrett have issued decisions that don't seem to be line with that thinking.
One common mistake is to think that their reasoning aligns closely with the politics of their parties. Gorsuch, for example, is a conservative, but he'll often come down on the side of Native American rights because their position relative to the government is grounded in contracts and treaties, and he's a hawk when it comes to preserving the right of contract. Once you understand that bias in his thinking, it makes sense as a conservative point of view, but it also means that he sometimes rules in favor of plaintiffs that we'd associate with the liberal side of a case.
Part of what's so flummoxing about Allen v. Milligan is that most of us thought we had Roberts pegged as the anti-VRA guy. He opposed it in the Reagan administration, helped tear down pre-clearance, and has consistently ruled against it. So either something here has recalibrated his position, even if only temporarily, or there's a nuance to position that hasn't really stood out in previous cases.
And Kavanaugh, who knows? I don't have a clear sense of his ideological commitments. Maybe he has none.
I read someone suggest they may be worried about their legacy. The current Supreme Court is seen as a farce. Their actions have caused people to question their legitimacy, so they may be worried that they will be seen as the ones who destroyed the Supreme Court. In other words they might be seen as the bad guys and so are now trying to subdue a bit of that thinking. It's not really going to work for them unless they consistently stop the corrruption, but these people are so easily bought.
But who knows really why they decided to go this route.
Roberts’ opinion brought a strongly worded dissent from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who accused the majority — including his colleague Brett M. Kavanaugh — of creating a “consciously segregated districting system” in the name of the Voting Rights Act.
I really want to know what he thinks the current system is if it's not that.
Intent is a pretty big question when it comes to cases like this. When Congress reauthorized the VRA in the 80s, the rewrote part of it to shift the focus to impact. In other words, districting changes that disadvantaged racial minorities has to be changed, even if the impact was unintentional. That's part of why Republicans in South Carolina a few years back felt safe saying, "No, these districts were intended to disadvantage Democrats." The law forbade redistricting to break up the voting block of a racial minority, but not for partisan gain. It just happened to be the case that the Democrats in the targeted district were mostly black.
Focusing on impact, rather than intent, helps prevent that sort of sleight of hand. And, as a result, some Republicans are deadset on shifting back to an intent-based standard, which is far more dificult to prove. Thomas is a notorious opponent of the impact standard—presumably because he believes that structural remedies to racism are just as bad for Black Americans as unmitigated racism. A stance that starts to seem pretty tortured in light of revelations about his relationship to Harlan Crow.
Oh, yeah. I realize that there's a lot of nuance at play. It's just that I'm a historian who grew up in the Deep South, so I'm well aware that whatever other excuses and loopholes are used, it's ultimately all about trying to reinstate segregation by another name. Because it always is.
Still in shock that this was the decision from the Supreme Court. We (the masses) are always trying to put the justices in these black and white boxes, but now Roberts and previously Barrett have issued decisions that don't seem to be line with that thinking.
One common mistake is to think that their reasoning aligns closely with the politics of their parties. Gorsuch, for example, is a conservative, but he'll often come down on the side of Native American rights because their position relative to the government is grounded in contracts and treaties, and he's a hawk when it comes to preserving the right of contract. Once you understand that bias in his thinking, it makes sense as a conservative point of view, but it also means that he sometimes rules in favor of plaintiffs that we'd associate with the liberal side of a case.
Part of what's so flummoxing about Allen v. Milligan is that most of us thought we had Roberts pegged as the anti-VRA guy. He opposed it in the Reagan administration, helped tear down pre-clearance, and has consistently ruled against it. So either something here has recalibrated his position, even if only temporarily, or there's a nuance to position that hasn't really stood out in previous cases.
And Kavanaugh, who knows? I don't have a clear sense of his ideological commitments. Maybe he has none.
I read someone suggest they may be worried about their legacy. The current Supreme Court is seen as a farce. Their actions have caused people to question their legitimacy, so they may be worried that they will be seen as the ones who destroyed the Supreme Court. In other words they might be seen as the bad guys and so are now trying to subdue a bit of that thinking. It's not really going to work for them unless they consistently stop the corrruption, but these people are so easily bought.
But who knows really why they decided to go this route.
I really want to know what he thinks the current system is if it's not that.
Intent is a pretty big question when it comes to cases like this. When Congress reauthorized the VRA in the 80s, the rewrote part of it to shift the focus to impact. In other words, districting changes that disadvantaged racial minorities has to be changed, even if the impact was unintentional. That's part of why Republicans in South Carolina a few years back felt safe saying, "No, these districts were intended to disadvantage Democrats." The law forbade redistricting to break up the voting block of a racial minority, but not for partisan gain. It just happened to be the case that the Democrats in the targeted district were mostly black.
Focusing on impact, rather than intent, helps prevent that sort of sleight of hand. And, as a result, some Republicans are deadset on shifting back to an intent-based standard, which is far more dificult to prove. Thomas is a notorious opponent of the impact standard—presumably because he believes that structural remedies to racism are just as bad for Black Americans as unmitigated racism. A stance that starts to seem pretty tortured in light of revelations about his relationship to Harlan Crow.
Oh, yeah. I realize that there's a lot of nuance at play. It's just that I'm a historian who grew up in the Deep South, so I'm well aware that whatever other excuses and loopholes are used, it's ultimately all about trying to reinstate segregation by another name. Because it always is.