pb's been pointing out for years here that much of the woke and progressive agenda is in place because court’s foisted it, But, this is a "democracy.
"Of the people, by the people, for the people," BABY!
The court’s six conservative justices seemed like they would vote to effectively strike down a Black majority House district in Louisiana because it relied too heavily on race, as lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration tried to persuade the court to wipe the district away.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called on the high court to create a “workable system” and “fix” the map-drawing process that she believes they broke to begin with.
“Our Legislature has been acting in good faith… in trying to comply with both the Voting Rights Act and the court’s jurisprudence. But it is an impossible task,” Murrill told reporters.
The inside of the courtroom was staid for much of the hearing with the liberal justices all clearly defending the continued existence of Section 2. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the most animated of the justices, when she questioned Edward Greim, the attorney for the current plaintiffs and asked if the standard for bringing voting rights cases would be to show “intentional” racial discrimination.
The justices can issue rulings whenever they are complete, however. The timing of a ruling could matter – if it is in favor of Louisiana, an earlier ruling could have a bigger impact on the midterms elections.
The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Supreme Court seems likely to limit race-based electoral districts under Voting Rights Act":
(0.0) 
(5.0) 
(0.0 from 0 votes)
