Red1575
13.8K posts


In Huge Win For Republicans, Supreme Court Curbs Use Of Race In Drawing Voting Districts | Tyler Durden, Zerohedge In a sweeping 6-3 decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map with a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais (No. 24-109) delivers a major victory for Republicans by sharply curtailing the Voting Rights Act’s ability to compel the creation of predominantly Black or Hispanic districts - a development that could help the GOP protect and expand its House majority in the 2026 midterms and beyond. Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, properly interpreted, did not require Louisiana to draw the additional majority-Black district in Senate Bill 8. Because the state’s use of race was not justified by a compelling interest, the map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A Major Reset of Voting Rights Law The decision does far more than resolve one Louisiana map. It fundamentally updates the legal framework for Voting Rights Act challenges that has been in place since Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). The Court made three critical changes that will make it significantly harder for plaintiffs to force race-conscious districting: - Illustrative maps must be race-neutral: Plaintiffs can no longer draw “demonstration maps” that deliberately maximize majority-minority districts. Any alternative map must fully comply with all of a state’s legitimate, non-racial districting goals - including traditional criteria and the state’s partisan political objectives. - Race must be disentangled from party: To prove political cohesion and racial bloc voting, plaintiffs must now control for partisan affiliation. Simply showing that Black voters and white voters support different candidates is no longer enough if the pattern tracks party preference rather than race. - Focus on current intentional discrimination: The “totality of circumstances” analysis must center on evidence of present-day intentional racial discrimination in voting. Historical discrimination and generalized “societal effects” carry far less weight. These changes align Section 2 more closely with the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination and the Constitution’s general bar on race-based government action. zerohedge.com/political/huge…


BREAKING: Settlement of a Judicial Watch lawsuit has forced the review and removal of some 800,000 ineligible voters from Oregon voter rolls



🏠 NEW: US Housing Starts Surge to Highest Level Since December 2024 WE'RE BUILDING AGAIN 🇺🇸




New - Generic Ballot poll 🔴 Republicans 50% 🔵 Democrats 50% First Tie in 50 days HarrisX #B - LV - 4/26









Last Saturday, we were informed that the state would be responsible for our protection, and we were prohibited from bringing our firearms as they had taken control of our security. Later that night, an assassin stormed the event, exposing the significant security lapses. However, something extraordinary occurred that night that I can’t shake off. The goalpost shifted. The night was deemed a success because the perpetrator failed to reach the president or the cabinet. What?! Look, I don’t believe what transpired on Saturday night at WHCD was the result of a massive conspiracy. I don’t think the law enforcement officers who rushed toward danger were not brave and honorable. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept that this was our best performance. Washington seems content with waiting for us all to move on to the next story. I refuse to move on. Our entire security apparatus demands scrutiny. How many times have we heard after a major casualty event that there were signs that were overlooked? Last Saturday night, they assured us that they had control, but they didn’t. And if you’re going to ask us to surrender our firearms, you better rise to the occasion. They did not.








