Rebel5soul
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2024
- Posts
- 6,355
Based on the questions from the justices today during oral arguments on the issue its future's not looking bright.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You sure did. She did her best to give the die hard segregationist credibility.Did I read this right? Is Justice Ketanji Jackson actually saying out loud that black people are too retarded to vote?
View attachment 2571361
You don't have a clue as to what this is all about............so sad.Well that is what Texas just did. Are you saying it's wrong?
I'll take that as a yes.You don't have a clue as to what this is all about............so sad.
She was referring to the term as described in Allen v Milligan.(21-1086_1co6.pdf https://share.google/RdgKHzKJ8YazaZL1V (page 24) - Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinionDid I read this right? Is Justice Ketanji Jackson actually saying out loud that black people are too retarded to vote?
View attachment 2571361
That occurs where an individual is disabled from âenter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner
They're -- they're disabled. In fact, we used the word "disabled" in Milligan. We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.
I suppose you did read that right-wing propaganda right. But there's this crazy little thing called context...Did I read this right?
You don't have a clue as to what this is all about............so sad.
As I posted - she used the term in the same context that Chief Justice Roberts did in Allen v Milligan in the opinion from 2023You sure did. She did her best to give the die hard segregationist credibility.
Did I read this right? Is Justice Ketanji Jackson actually saying out loud that black people are too retarded to vote?
View attachment 2571361
I know what the arguments before the court are about.Addressing both clowns.
What is at issue here is some perceived mandate under the ACA that black districts MUST be drawn. Should the court decide that that isn't the case then states will not be obligated to draw black districts. That is not to say they CAN'T do so, they can. But they do so at the risk of being dragged into court for disenfranchising voters of other than the black persuasion. Got it?
How do you slander a moron that doesn't know what a woman is?I know what the arguments before the court are about.
I also know that assholes take pieces of it out of context to slander a justice and get clicks on the twitters.
Yes, you're really proving yourself a reliable example of slander.How do you slander a moron that doesn't know what a woman is?
Addressing both clowns.
What is at issue here is some perceived mandate under the ACA that black districts MUST be drawn. Should the court decide that that isn't the case then states will not be obligated to draw black districts. That is not to say they CAN'T do so, they can. But they do so at the risk of being dragged into court for disenfranchising voters of other than the black persuasion. Got it?
Jackson is the poster child for the level of intellectual garbage you get when you worship at the alter of DEI.Yes, you're really proving yourself a reliable example of slander.
You seem to enjoy slander.Jackson is the poster child for the level of intellectual garbage you get when you worship at the alter of DEI.
I saw this coming 12 years ago, when they killed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.Based on the questions from the justices today during oral arguments on the issue its future's not looking bright.
Translation: They do NOT want minorities holding any political offices in this country ever.Hereâs a good summary of yesterdayâs SCOTUS hearing on the race-based gerrymandering case:
If the oral argument is a reflection of the eventual votes of the justices, there now seems to be a working majority of justices willing to bring âan end pointâ to race-based districting. The result would have tremendous legal and political impact.
Legally, one of the most litigated areas of elections would be largely curtailed. The Voting Rights Act would still be used to prevent measures to inhibit voting and to protect the right to vote for every citizen. However, the constant districting controversies over guaranteeing majority black districts would come to an end.
The move would also be a major additional move of the Roberts court to eliminate the use of race-based classifications in society from college admissions to election districting. In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that position most succinctly by declaring that the âway to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.â
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/...ased-districting-under-the-voting-rights-act/
Do you believe race-based gerrymandering should remain a permanent fixture in voting maps? Has nothing changed since 1965?Translation: They do NOT want minorities holding any political offices in this country ever.