The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the drawing of a new Alabama congressional map with greater representation for Black voters to proceed, rejecting the state's plea to retain Republican-drawn lines that were struck down by a lower court.

In refusing to intervene, the justices, without any noted dissent, allowed a court-appointed special master's work to continue. On Monday, he submitted three proposals that would create a second congressional district where Black voters comprise a majority of the voting age population or close to it.

[www.yahoo.com]

Hopefully this will impact the other states that are in litigation over the reduction of minority districts.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late

Meh.

Token gesture.

They know the republican state legislatures have already done so much damage that the odds of a vote for a democrat having any impact in the South or Mid-West are remote at best.

If they cared about doing their jobs instead of mooching luxury vacations, homes, and interest-free loans off of billionaires and lobbying groups, they'd throw out Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and restore the Voting Rights Act.

---

Quote
Tiangou
Meh.

Token gesture.

They know the republican state legislatures have already done so much damage that the odds of a vote for a democrat having any impact in the South or Mid-West are remote at best.

If they cared about doing their jobs instead of mooching luxury vacations, homes, and interest-free loans off of billionaires and lobbying groups, they'd throw out Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and restore the Voting Rights Act.

On John Roberts' watch? Never!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2023 01:52PM by jonny.

Quote
Ombligo
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the drawing of a new Alabama congressional map with greater representation for Black voters to proceed, rejecting the state's plea to retain Republican-drawn lines that were struck down by a lower court.

In refusing to intervene, the justices, without any noted dissent, allowed a court-appointed special master's work to continue. On Monday, he submitted three proposals that would create a second congressional district where Black voters comprise a majority of the voting age population or close to it.

[www.yahoo.com]

Hopefully this will impact the other states that are in litigation over the reduction of minority districts.

This is very important to the voters of Alabama. It matters a lot, whether it gives the rest of us a gift or not. All people of these states deserve fair representation.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Ombligo
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the drawing of a new Alabama congressional map with greater representation for Black voters to proceed, rejecting the state's plea to retain Republican-drawn lines that were struck down by a lower court.

In refusing to intervene, the justices, without any noted dissent, allowed a court-appointed special master's work to continue. On Monday, he submitted three proposals that would create a second congressional district where Black voters comprise a majority of the voting age population or close to it.

[www.yahoo.com]

Hopefully this will impact the other states that are in litigation over the reduction of minority districts.

This is very important to the voters of Alabama. It matters a lot, whether it gives the rest of us a gift or not. All people of these states deserve fair representation.

And it's not the end of it. They're going to have to comply.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Ombligo
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the drawing of a new Alabama congressional map with greater representation for Black voters to proceed, rejecting the state's plea to retain Republican-drawn lines that were struck down by a lower court.

In refusing to intervene, the justices, without any noted dissent, allowed a court-appointed special master's work to continue. On Monday, he submitted three proposals that would create a second congressional district where Black voters comprise a majority of the voting age population or close to it.

[www.yahoo.com]

Hopefully this will impact the other states that are in litigation over the reduction of minority districts.

This is very important to the voters of Alabama. It matters a lot, whether it gives the rest of us a gift or not. All people of these states deserve fair representation.

And it's not the end of it. They're going to have to comply.

Not hard to imagine Alabama legislative leaders chortling among themselves "how many troops does SCOTUS have?"*

*paraphrasing from Uncle Joe re: the Pope

You do understand that this is exactly what California, NY, Illinois and WA do when they get a SCOTUS ruling they don't like don't you? Ignore it, slow walk remanded cases, look for loopholes and work arounds? Judges ignoring SCOTUS rulings and procedures laid out in precedents.

But when its to your benefit, you applaud it. Hypocrisy.

edit. I missed Oregon on that list.

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2023 10:09PM by Smote.

Quote
Smote
You do understand that this is exactly what California, NY, Illinois and WA do when they get a SCOTUS ruling they don't like don't you? Ignore it, slow walk remanded cases, look for loopholes and work arounds? Judges ignoring SCOTUS rulings and procedures laid out in precedents.

But when its to your benefit, you applaud it. Hypocrisy.

edit. I missed Oregon on that list.

What Alabama's legislature is trying to do isn't defensible. Also, Alabama can't conduct a Federal election based on illegal/invalid congressional districts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2023 11:18PM by vision63.

when is ignoring the law ever defensible? We are talking Civil Rights here. A Right Delayed is a Right Denied.

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

Quote
Smote
when is ignoring the law ever defensible?

When the law is morally wrong.

---

that has never been a legal defense. The solution is to change the law.

[www.supremecourt.gov]

"It is no defense simply to claim that one’s criminal conduct was morally right."

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

“ this is exactly what “

No, not really.

Not exactly whatsoever.

A State not liking a SCOTUS ruling so they do anything they can to not comply? SCOTUS not interfering is in essence a nod to the original ruling.

There is very little reason for SCOTUS to actually adjudicate a case unless the lower courts got it wrong, or different Appeals Circuits have different decisions of the same issues (split circuits) SCOTUS overturns lower courts 71.4% of the time. The 9th on average 80.4% [ballotpedia.org])

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2023 01:11AM by Smote.

Your total ignorance of the Alabama case specifically and of the way our courts function generally could not be made more glaringly obvious.

Quote
Smote
that has never been a legal defense. The solution is to change the law.

[www.supremecourt.gov]

"It is no defense simply to claim that one’s criminal conduct was morally right."

You express a great deal of anx­i­ety over our will­ing­ness to break laws. This is cer­tain­ly a legit­i­mate concern...

One may well ask: “How can you advo­cate break­ing some laws and obey­ing oth­ers?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advo­cate obey­ing just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral respon­si­bil­i­ty to obey just laws. Con­verse­ly, one has a moral respon­si­bil­i­ty to dis­obey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augus­tine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”...

A law is unjust if it is inflict­ed on a minor­i­ty that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enact­ing or devis­ing the law. Who can say that the leg­is­la­ture of Alaba­ma which set up that state’s seg­re­ga­tion laws was demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed? Through­out Alaba­ma all sorts of devi­ous meth­ods are used to pre­vent Negroes from becom­ing reg­is­tered vot­ers, and there are some coun­ties in which, even though Negroes con­sti­tute a major­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion, not a sin­gle Negro is reg­is­tered. Can any law enact­ed under such cir­@#$%&­stances be con­sid­ered demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly structured?

Some­times a law is just on its face and unjust in its appli­ca­tion. For instance, I have been arrest­ed on a charge of parad­ing with­out a per­mit. Now, there is noth­ing wrong in hav­ing an ordi­nance which requires a per­mit for a parade. But such an ordi­nance becomes unjust when it is used to main­tain seg­re­ga­tion and to deny cit­i­zens the First-Amend­ment priv­i­lege of peace­ful assem­bly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the dis­tinc­tion I am try­ing to point out. In no sense do I advo­cate evad­ing or defy­ing the law, as would the rabid seg­re­ga­tion­ist. That would lead to anar­chy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so open­ly, lov­ing­ly, and with a will­ing­ness to accept the penal­ty. I sub­mit that an indi­vid­ual who breaks a law that con­science tells him is unjust, and who will­ing­ly accepts the penal­ty of impris­on­ment in order to arouse the con­science of the com­mu­ni­ty over its injus­tice, is in real­i­ty express­ing the high­est respect for law.

(Guess who wrote that, and about what state's laws.)

---

Some people equate because they hold expertise in one area (guns) that in-itself transfers to them expertise in other areas (law), that appears to be the case here.

Quote
RgrF
Some people equate because they hold expertise in one area (guns) that in-itself transfers to them expertise in other areas (law), that appears to be the case here.

I think at this point, "appears" is putting it lightly.

It's axiomatic. "Some people" have aptly demonstrated a great expertise in seeking out and quoting out-of-context passages from laws and SCOTUS decisions and a complete ignorance of the application of laws and the practice of law and the history of the United States.

At a certain point, you have to wonder whether "Some people" are getting most of their info from Russian bots.

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
that has never been a legal defense. The solution is to change the law.

[www.supremecourt.gov]

"It is no defense simply to claim that one’s criminal conduct was morally right."

You express a great deal of anx­i­ety over our will­ing­ness to break laws. This is cer­tain­ly a legit­i­mate concern...

One may well ask: “How can you advo­cate break­ing some laws and obey­ing oth­ers?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advo­cate obey­ing just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral respon­si­bil­i­ty to obey just laws. Con­verse­ly, one has a moral respon­si­bil­i­ty to dis­obey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augus­tine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”...

A law is unjust if it is inflict­ed on a minor­i­ty that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enact­ing or devis­ing the law. Who can say that the leg­is­la­ture of Alaba­ma which set up that state’s seg­re­ga­tion laws was demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed? Through­out Alaba­ma all sorts of devi­ous meth­ods are used to pre­vent Negroes from becom­ing reg­is­tered vot­ers, and there are some coun­ties in which, even though Negroes con­sti­tute a major­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion, not a sin­gle Negro is reg­is­tered. Can any law enact­ed under such cir­@#$%&­stances be con­sid­ered demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly structured?

Some­times a law is just on its face and unjust in its appli­ca­tion. For instance, I have been arrest­ed on a charge of parad­ing with­out a per­mit. Now, there is noth­ing wrong in hav­ing an ordi­nance which requires a per­mit for a parade. But such an ordi­nance becomes unjust when it is used to main­tain seg­re­ga­tion and to deny cit­i­zens the First-Amend­ment priv­i­lege of peace­ful assem­bly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the dis­tinc­tion I am try­ing to point out. In no sense do I advo­cate evad­ing or defy­ing the law, as would the rabid seg­re­ga­tion­ist. That would lead to anar­chy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so open­ly, lov­ing­ly, and with a will­ing­ness to accept the penal­ty. I sub­mit that an indi­vid­ual who breaks a law that con­science tells him is unjust, and who will­ing­ly accepts the penal­ty of impris­on­ment in order to arouse the con­science of the com­mu­ni­ty over its injus­tice, is in real­i­ty express­ing the high­est respect for law.

(Guess who wrote that, and about what state's laws.)

very well spoken, and I can certainly respect that answer. When lawmakers pass or sign into law something that has already been judged a civil rights violation, and they know they won't be held accountable for those violations, what kind of public servants are they?

Or when a judge ignores laid out legal methodology because of personal beliefs, so they can justify a verdict they know is wrong, for what they believe is a good reason? There are layers of violations of the law and their oath in that.

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

Where are a Faubus and a Wallace when they are really needed to demonstrate how to force the hand of the SCOTUS and the president.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
mattkime

Quote
Smote
when is ignoring the law ever defensible?

When the law is morally wrong.

like laws that protect the guilty?

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

Quote
Smote

Quote
mattkime

Quote
Smote
when is ignoring the law ever defensible?

When the law is morally wrong.

like laws that protect the guilty?

I have no idea what, specifically, you might be thinking of

---